Mississauga Sexual Assault Lawyer | Experienced Defence Against Sexual Assault Charges

R v. S (2024, OCJ Toronto)

Client was in the business of promoting young singers. A mother of one of the singers complained to the police that the client had sexually assaulted her on 3 separate occasions. I was able to convince the Crown Attorney that there was a clear civil motive behind the allegations. All of the sexual assault charges were withdrawn and the client plead to 1 count of assault and received an absolute discharge and no criminal record.

R v. D (2024, OCJ North Bay)

Client was charged with 15 counts of sexual assault; assault; assault with a weapon; and so on involving his ex-wife, daughter and son. It was the defence theory that the daughter did not want to go back and live with her father because he imposed rules that she did not have to follow when living at home with her mother. She tried to complain that my client had physically assaulted her but when that was not accepted and she was told that she still had to return to her father’s place by her own lawyer, she made a complaint that her father had been raping her for years. During my cross-examination it became abundantly clear that my client’s ex-wife, daughter and son were all lying and had conspired to put my client in jail. The evidence was so unbelievable following my cross-examination, that I did not have to call my client to testify and at the end of the Crown Attorney’s submissions the judge immediately acquitted my client on all charges.

R v. S (2023, OCJ Brampton)

Client was originally charged with an assault on his wife and was released on conditions. He was then charged with breaching his conditions for having contact with his wife. His wife then went to the police and had him charged with assaults against his children. The client was again released from custody. The complainant then went back to police and had him charged with a series of sexual assaults. During my cross-examination of the complainant, it became apparent that she was a very bitter woman and was not telling the truth about anything. She refused to answer any questions directly and simply gave speeches to the court, frustrating the judge, the Crown Attorney and myself. The client was acquitted of all charges except the breach of contact order, because that conversation had been recorded. He received a suspended sentence and probation. The Crown Attorney had originally been seeking a sentence of 4 to 5 years in jail. Following the completion of the case, the complainant went back to the police and had my client arrested for 2 other historical assaults. The Crown Attorney ultimately reviewed those allegations and withdrew both charges.

R v. G (2023, OCJ Milton)

Client was charged with a series of historical sexual assaults, assaults and criminal harassment involving a complainant who he ended a relationship with. Fortunately for the client, he had kept a series of emails and videos and messages from the complainant. We were able to put together a package of digital information for the Crown Attorney which made it highly unlikely if not impossible for the events to have taken place as alleged. As a result, the Crown Attorney withdrew all charges.

R v. S (2023, OCJ Brampton)

Client was originally charged with an assault on his wife and was released on conditions. He was then charged with breaching his conditions for having contact with his wife. His wife then went to the police and had him charged with assaults against his children. The client was again released from custody. The complainant then went back to police and had him charged with a series of sexual assaults. During my cross-examination of the complainant, it became apparent that she was a very bitter woman and was not telling the truth about anything. She refused to answer any questions directly and simply gave speeches to the court, frustrating the judge, the Crown Attorney and myself. The client was acquitted of all charges except the breach of contact order, because that conversation had been recorded. He received a suspended sentence and probation. The Crown Attorney had originally been seeking a sentence of 4 to 5 years in jail. Following the completion of the case, the complainant went back to the police and had my client arrested for 2 other historical assaults. The Crown Attorney ultimately reviewed those allegations and withdrew both charges.

R v. L (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with criminal harassment, break and enter to a dwelling house and an indecent act. The client had become obsessed with his neighbour and was leaving bizarre notes on her door and in her mailbox. The neighbour installed a camera and the client was seen fiddling with the front door lock and was captured on video committing an indecent act on the neighbour’s front porch. At pretrial with the judge, I was able to convince both the Crown Attorney and the judge that the break and enter charge and the criminal harassment charge could not be proven. At the time, the client was suffering from a major depression as a result of a terminal cancer diagnosis. The client was also prepared to sell his house and move up north to live with his brother. As a result of all of this information, the client plead guilty to the indecent act charge and received probation for 18 months and the other charges were withdrawn. The Crown Attorney had originally been seeking 2 to 3 years in jail.

R v. L (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with 2 counts of indecent act, 1 count of breaking and entering and 1 count of criminal harassment. The client had an alcohol addiction and these allegations arose because he was exposing himself on the next door neighbour’s porch and leaving notes on $50 bills on her door. It was also alleged that he had tried to break in to her front door using a credit card. Following a judicial pre-trial and following some up-front counselling work by my client, it became clear that while this was a very bizarre situation it, was extremely unlikely to repeat itself because the client had moved up north and was having no further contact with the neighbour in question. The client plead guilty to 1 count of indecent act and received probation for 1 year. The crown attorney’s initial position had been 2 years in jail.

R v. F (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with sexual assault, aggravated assault and 3 counts of assault. He was then later charged with breaching his conditions of release for being in contact with the complainant and commenting to her that the court might see videos of the two of them having sex. Following a series of judicial pre-trials and detailed input from the complainant, it became clear that both parties had significant substance abuse issues and both had been under the influence of drugs during the time of all of the allegations. It was also clear from the complainant’s original statement that the aggravated assault may have been an accident and so that charge was not viable. Ultimately the client plead guilty to 1 count of assault and 1 count of attempting to obstruct justice for talking to the complainant about the case and he received a 30 day conditional sentence (a jail sentence that he served at home under house arrest but was permitted to go to work) followed by 18 months probation. All other charges were withdrawn. The crown attorney’s original position had ben 5 years in jail.

R v. M (2021, OCJ Peterborough)

Client was charged with internet luring for having contacted and arranging to meet up with a girl who was under aged. Her parents found out and contacted the police. The crown attorney’s position was 18 months in jail. Following a judicial pre-trial and with the assistance of previous case law, the judge agreed to sentence him to 8 months in jail. There was no forensic psychiatry report available because such a report would have done more harm than good to the client; it is imperative that you know everything there is to know before ordering such an assessment. In this case the client was completely up front with me about what he had done in the past that the police were not aware of and so no report was requested.

R v. V (2021, OCJ Orangeville)

Client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and the making and distributing of child pornography in relation to his two young children. Client has been going through a bitter divorce in which his ex-wife has been repeatedly doing things to try to get him into trouble and asking allegations against him at every turn. It was our belief that his wife had put the kids up to this and had coached them in what to say. I was able to obtain reports from the Children’s Aid Society in which they confirmed that they had repeatedly cautioned my client’s ex-wife against taking statements from the kids while leading them in what they should say. The OPP Technology Crimes Unit did a full investigation and found there was no evidence of any photos or videos being taken or distributed and the crown attorney ultimately withdrew all charges.

R v. N (2021, OCJ Newmarket)

The client was charged with an indecent act. He had been exposing himself inside his vehicle in a public place and a woman walking by his vehicle saw what he was doing and called the police. I had the client do some up-front counselling and had him assessed by a forensic psychiatrist to show he was not an ongoing risk to the public. I was also able to show to the crown attorney from the complainant’s statement that he was not trying to draw attention to himself but rather she had simply seen this happening. The crown attorney agreed to withdraw the charge and the client signed a peace bond for a period of 12 months.

R v. S (2020, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with a sexual assault. He was travelling on a bus and the complainant alleged that he reached forward in between the seats and grabbed her breast. I met with the crown attorney and it was agreed that the client would do some counselling up-front about appropriate behavior in Canada when travelling on public transit and the charge was withdrawn.

R v. M (2020, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with an indecent act for having exposed himself several times in the grocery store line-up, pretending that it had been an accident. Client was a very successful banking executive who had lost his job and had become an alcoholic. I provided the crown attorney and the judge with a very favourable report from a forensic psychiatrist and the client had arranged for a new consulting position with one of the big banks and was clearly heading in a positive alcohol-free direction. Client received a conditional discharge and probation for 9 months with no criminal record.

R v. D (2019, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with a series of sexual assaults and sexual interference in relation to his niece. The incidents were historical in nature. Following a trial the judge found that while he did not believe my client’s testimony he still found him not guilty because my cross-examination of the complainant brought out far too many inconsistencies. As the judge said in his decision, these inconsistencies are not unexpected when the events took place so long ago but there were far too many of them and as I had pointed out in my submissions and with which the judge agreed, there were over 40 times in which the complainant said “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure” or “I really don’t remember – my memory is really bad”. The judge found that given all these inconsistencies and concerns he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the client was guilty.

R. v. C. (2019, Brampton)

Client was charged with a sexual assault on a woman at the rooming house where he lived. I was able to convince the Crown that this was not exactly how it was portrayed and encouraged the Crown to get input from the complainant. Ultimately, the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond.

R. v. A. (2019, Brampton)

Client was charged with voyeurism for having taken a picture up a woman’s skirt at a store in Mississauga. Client had had a very difficult childhood growing up in a war-torn country, but now had a very good job and had complicated his business degree, had taken extensive counselling and received a conditional discharge.

R. v. B. (2018, Brampton)

Client charged with sexual assault in relation to a neighbour. I was able to arrange independent legal advice for the complainant who provided an affidavit to the Crown indicating that the events were actually consensual, and she had contacted the police at the insistence of her husband. Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. C. (2018, Brampton)

Client charged with sexual assaults on both his biological daughter and his stepdaughter. Client did not dispute the allegations and did not want either of his daughters to have to testify. He did however with some of the facts, I was able to get the Crown to agree on a change to some of the factual allegations and he ultimately pled guilty and received a sentence of four years in jail, rather than the ten years that the Crown was originally asking for.

R. v. D. (2017, Brampton)

Client was charged with two counts of indecent act for having exposed himself in a public park. Client had been heavily intoxicated at the time. Client received individual counselling both for substance abuse and appropriate behaviour and ultimately received a conditional discharge from the judge with no criminal record.

R. v. B. - Indecent Act

Client was heavily intoxicated and exposed himself to other people who took pictures of him doing so and contacted the police. Client had no memory of even being at the place where the incident took place due to his level of intoxication and only remembered being at the police station.

I had the client participate in counselling not only for his apparent alcohol problem, but also for other personal issues that he was experiencing. Additionally I had him formally assessed to prove that he was not a risk to the public.

Client plead guilty; the judge agreed that this was completely out of character for him, and that he had done everything possible to address the issues that gave rise to this. He was given an absolute discharge.

R. v. D. (2015 Brampton) - Indecent Act

Client was charged with indecent act after the complainant alleged he exposed himself in his car to her.

To convince the Crown that based on the complainant's statement, which did not include any suggestion that he was doing anything with his penis other than it might have been exposed, that the offence of indecent act with which he was charged was not made out. The Crown was reluctant to agree with my assessment, but on balance agreed that if he would sign a peace bond to have no contact with the complainant the charge would be withdrawn.

Charges were withdrawn.

R. v. O. (2013-2015 New Market) - Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference

My client was charged with five separate incidents of improper touching of the daughter of family friends. The Crown was seeking a lengthy custodial sentence.

We conducted a preliminary hearing in which the complainant was cross-examined at length about her memory and about the lack of opportunity for this to have happened because she says the incidents occurred when there were between twenty to thirty people in the house where these incidents supposedly occurred. I had interviewed some of the other children that were around the same age or older as the complainant, and they were all of the belief that there would not have been an opportunity for this to have happened. I cross-examined the complainant about the lack of opportunity, and she had no explanation for how this could have happened with so many people around.

A trial date was set, and at the start of the trial the accused was arraigned. The Crown called no evidence, and my client was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. L.Y. - Indecent Act

My client had a medial condition that resulted in him having an inability to control his bladder. A truck driver thought that he was exposing himself in his vehicle.

I convinced the Crown that the truck driver had misinterpreted my client's actions, and he was granted diversion.

charges withdrawn

R. v. B.R. - Indecent Act and Mischief

Mr R. had some issues that were more indicative of the need for counselling than punishment.

The issues that were addressed by the counsellor made it clear that the neighbours misinterpreted Mr. R's intentions.

After completing several months of counselling, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings.

R. v. R. (Brampton Court, September 2012)

Client was found looking into the windows of homes in a neighbouring area, with a cell phone is his hand. Client confessed he had been looking into windows in hopes of seeing someone naked, of which he would take pictures to fuel his pornography addiction.

To convince the Crown and judge that this incident was a direct result of my client's addiction to pornography and mental strains in his life, including confidence issues and intimacy issues emerging from his childhood, and personal and financial strains. Additionally, to prove that my client was deeply remorseful for his actions and working towards bettering himself, by providing reports from a psychologist and showing evidence he had been seeing a social worker for an extended period of time in order to rehabilitate himself.

Client ultimately pled guilty to voyeurism, and received a conditional discharge and probation for 9 months.

R. v. T. (Brampton Court, July 2010)

Following a Peel Regional Police undercover investigation through the Yahoo! Chat and Yahoo! Messenger services, my client was charged with internet luring. Upon his arrest, a search warrant was issued for his residence, during which large amounts of marijuana were discovered, resulting in my client being charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

To ensure that my client took the situation seriously, and that he got counseling both from his family doctor and a recommended counselor. I also collected a packet of character references for my client, and effectively demonstrated to the judge that my client was now a valued employee at his place of work.

Although the Crown was seeking one year in jail, I was able to provide the judge with previous decisions and convince him of some extenuating circumstances; client received a sentence of only 45 days to be served on weekends.

R. v. S.(Toronto Ct., February 2010)

The client was charged with sexually assaulting two women that he worked with. They alleged that he had touched them inappropriately on several occasions at the work place and that he was often making inappropriate sexual remarks. The client had previously been found guilty of assaulting a co-worker at the same work location. The client was a supervisor to the people who were making the complaint.

It was our theory that these women did not like the client and were making these complaints knowing that he would get fired because of the previous incident. We would try to show that their statements did not make sense and that this was a fabrication.

Just before the trial started, the Crown advised me that she would be calling as a witness the girl who had previously complained. The client had pled guilty to that incident and so her testimony made the chances of success remote. The Crown then offered probation if the client pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. If the client were found guilty of a sexual assault while being in a supervisory capacity, he would have faced a minimum jail sentence. The Crown and I met with a Judge in chambers and the Judge agreed that probation was appropriate and the case was completed.

R. v. B. (Orangeville Ct., November 2009)

The client was charged with having sexual intercourse with his sister when she was 6 years old and he was 13 years old. The client was 22 years old at the time of arrest.

The client denied having sex with his sister but he did admit to touching her inappropriately and so I needed to convince the Crown to allow him to plead guilty on the basis that he touched her but did not have sex with her. I conducted a pre-trial with a Judge and the Judge was strongly encouraging the Crown to agree to the facts I was suggesting.

The Crown agreed to the less serious facts but still asked the Judge to send the client to jail for 6 months. I told the Judge that based on what the client had admitted, and his age at the time of the offence, probation was appropriate and the Judge agreed.

R. v. H. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2009

Complainant alleged that her brother-in-law had sexually assaulted her by grabbing her and groping her on two separate occasions -- once in her home and once in a public place. Mr. H. insisted he was innocent and denied any inappropriate touching of his brother’s wife.

To show that the complainant had fabricated the whole story in order to discredit the family. She had also accused her mother-in-law and her husband of assault. The marriage was at an end and she wanted revenge.

Approximately 10 minutes into my cross-examination of the complainant, I had caught her in several clear lies and the Crown asked for a break. He then said he would invite the judge to acquit my client if he would sign a peace bond. The client was reluctant to sign the peace bond given how well the cross-examination was going but he agreed to sign and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. R.E. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2008

Mr. R. was charged with sexually assaulting a co-worker after hours at the office. The complainant alleged that Mr. R. had kissed her against her will, forcibly pulled down her pants and tried to rape her. My client admitted that they had made out at the office after hours but insisted that she was a willing participant and that the encounter was completely consensual.

I needed to either get the complainant to admit that she was consenting or show that her testimony regarding no consent was simply not believable.

The judge not only found the client not guilty but went on to say that he believed Mr. R. was innocent! An accused person only needs to raise a reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind in order to be found not guilty; it is very rare for a judge to actually say he believed the accused person to have been innocent. During cross-examination, I got the complainant to admit that she was attracted to my client and that she had made that clear to him. She also admitted that the kissing was mutual and that she never told him that she was not agreeing to what was happening. In fact, she admitted that her actions at the time would have led Mr. R. to believe that she was a willing participant.

R. v. S.A. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2007

Client who was over 40 years old, was charged with a Sexual Assault on a 15-year old girl. She complained that he had taken her into a parking garage where he tried to get her to perform oral sex on him and that he pulled her top down. Client admitted that this had happened but said that she wanted money and he was not prepared to pay because she had previously provided this service without asking for any money.

Get the complainant to admit that there was a previous relationship between her and the client and that she had lied about her age by telling the client she was 19. Then the client would testify and tell the judge that she was a willing participant.

Client was acquitted of all charges. The complainant admitted lying about her age and agreed that she often called my client on his cell phone. She also admitted that she had asked my client for money. Client was believed when he testified that she was a willing participant who had done this before.

R. v. Y.S. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2006

This 15-year-old boy was charged with raping his 7-year-old nephew by sticking his penis in his nephew’s anus on 3 separate occasions, once outside at a school and twice at home in the family washroom. The client denied all allegations and said he loved his nephew as his own brother.

No family member could think of a possible motive to fabricate on the part of the young boy and so we had to show that there was no realistic opportunity for the assaults to have taken place. We called all the family members to explain to the judge how small the apartment was and how the girls were always involved in the bathing process and the client would never have been alone in the shower area with his nephew. We then took photos of the school yard where the other assault was supposed to have taken place so that we could show the judge that there were houses all around with a clear view to where the boy said he was when he was raped. And finally, we would need convincing testimony from the client.

Client acquitted of all charges. The judge believed my client and all the family members who made it clear that there was no opportunity for this to have happened in the apartment. The judge also found my cross-examination of the nephew regarding the school assault to be very persuasive. I had the nephew explain the position he was in when his uncle was putting his penis inside his anus and his testimony made no sense; it was physically impossible for the assault to have happened the way he said.