Individuals accused of criminal offences usually have two top priorities.  First, to be cleared of all charges and, second, to be cleared as soon as possible.

Listed here are brief descriptions of recent cases where those results were achieved either through effective advocacy resulting in the charges being withdrawn prior to trial or as a result of a not guilty verdict at the end of a trial.



Office: (416) 628 3751

Mobile: (416) 550 4678
Fax: 1 (877) 638 2259



Home  |  About  |  Services  

Mental Health   Successes

Rates   FAQs  |  Contact


Login name



R. v. S.S.

Conspiracy, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Etc. - Client and four co-accused arrested and charged after the execution of a search warrant uncovered approximately 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, a loaded firearm and cash in a house.  S.S. was found in the house.  The wallet and personal documents of S.S. were found in separate rooms of the house suggesting he lived at the address.  During the trial all charges were stayed.

R. v. G.N.

Conspiracy, Fraud, Organized Crime - Client alleged to be one of the ring leaders in a sophisticated debit card skimming operation run by two alleged criminal organizations.  The Crown relied on surveillance of the accused as well as debit card skimming equipment alleged found in the client's home.  After successfully arguing that the client's rights under Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. W.V.

Conspiracy - Client alleged to have acted as a “ring leader” and to have participated in the planning of the G20 Riot in Toronto.  The Crown relied on the testimony of undercover police officers as well as recordings of the accused.  All charges withdrawn in the midst of the preliminary hearing.
R. v. M.G.

Conspiracy to Traffic - Client alleged to have taken part in a conspiracy to traffic high grade marijuana.  Client allegedly caught on wire taps discussing the purchase and sale of marijuana.  All charges withdrawn after the Judicial Pretrial.


R. v. S.R.

Fraud, Utter Forged Document - Client was alleged to have deposited two forged cheques into her bank account and then immediately withdrawn large sums of cash.  At trial the Crown relied on pictures of the accused allegedly depositing one of the cheques, the client's bank records and testimony from bank staff.  Client acquitted of all charges after trial.

R. v. F.K.

Fraud - Client was alleged to have stolen an undisclosed amount of money from her employer by "voiding" transactions and pocketing the cash from those transactions as a cashier.  Some of this behavior was allegedly caught on video and recorded in her employers business records.  All charges withdrawn.

R. v. M.K.

Fraud - Client was alleged to have stolen thousands of dollars from her employer by fraudulently duplicating receipts in the course of her employment at a restaurant.  Although initial disclosure of business records appeared to confirm the fraud, careful examination of those records and requests for further related records resulted in all charges being withdrawn.    

R. v. G.S.

Possession of Stolen Property, Theft of Communication Services - Client was alleged to have acted as a fence in relation to a burglary in which over a million dollars worth of Blackberrys were stolen.  Evidence suggested that the client, who was caught on surveillance video selling a case of Blackberrys in a coffee shop, had received the stolen phones and then sold them to customers throughout Canada and the United states.  All charges withdrawn. 

R. v. S.R.

Possession of Fraudulent Credit Card Data, Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Etc. - Client was stopped by police due to an alleged seat belt infraction.  A further investigation uncovered multiple credit cards, government identification, cheques and financial documents not in the client's name throughout the car.  The client was charged with multiple fraud related offences as well as failure to comply with a recognizance.  Mr. Embry brought a Charter application challenging the legitimacy of the search of the car and asking that all evidence found as a result of that search be thrown out.  All charges withdrawn.

R. v. S.R.

Use Fraudulent Credit Card, Etc. - Client alleged to have taken part in a “debit card skimming” operation that spanned three jurisdiction and involved in excess of $170 000 in losses.  Crowns in all three jurisdictions relied on dozens of surveillance videos and images that allegedly showed the client committing the alleged offences.  All charges withdrawn in two jurisdictions and a conditional discharge entered in the third.  All matters disposed of with no permanent criminal record.
R. v. R.B.

Possession of Fraudulent Device, Etc. - Client charged with being in possession of instruments capable of forcing credit or debit cards.  Charges withdrawn.
R. v. R.B.

Possession of Fraudulent Device, Etc. - Client charged with entering multiple commercial properties and stealing debit card PIN pads while the clerks were distracted.  Crown relied on video surveillance of half of dozen of the effected businesses.  After disclosing exonerating evidence to the Crown at the Judicial Pretrial stage all charges with withdrawn.
R. v. J.S.

Possession of Fraudulent Credit Card, Etc. - Client charged with possession of stolen credit cards after a number of allegedly fraudulent credit cards (one of which bore the client’s name) were found in a vehicle with the client.  All charges withdrawn.



R. v. C.B.

Assault with a Weapon, Etc. – Client charged with driving her boyfriend out a second floor window by brandishing a machete at him during a fight.  All charges withdrawn.
R. v. A.S.

Aggravated Assault - Client was accused of stabbing an individual in the washroom of a club.  Client was picked out of a line up by a bouncer who testified that he had seen the client fleeing the scene.  The Crown also relied on DNA evidence that linked the client to the scene of the crime.  After the client’s opportunity to commit the crime was put in doubt during a careful cross examination of the bouncer all charges were dismissed.
R. v. A.V.G.

Assault Causing Bodily Harm - While en route to dinner with his then fiancé A.V.G. became embroiled in a road rage incident brought on by a driver who did not feel A.V.G. was driving fast enough.  The situation worsened when the other driver approached A.V.G.’s car and a physical altercation ensued.  When the police arrived A.V.G. was charged with assault in light of having broken his attacker’s orbital bone while defending himself.  During A.V.G.’s trial so many inconsistencies were uncovered in the evidence of the injured attacker during cross examination that the charges were dismissed before A.V.G. even had to take the stand.
R. v. A.B.

Forcible Confinement, Etc. - Client charged with assault, forcible confinement and extortion among other charges.  Client was alleged to have taken part in what could only be described as a lengthy reign of terror over the complainant; using violence and threats to extract money.  Crown withdrew the charges prior to trial after the complainants questionable credibility and motives were highlighted during the pretrial process.
R. v. J.C.

Robbery - Client charged with robbery after a purse snatching incident in broad daylight.  Client was charged after his cell phone was found by the complainant at the scene of the crime.  Client acquitted after trial.
R. v. J.C.

Robbery, Conspiracy - Client charged with robbery and conspiracy after it was alleged that he, along with his girlfriend, planned a “mock robbery” in which he and a co-accused “robbed” the store that the girlfriend was working at.  The Crown relied on cell phone communications and text messages between the client and his girlfriend at the time of the robbery.  All charges withdrawn.


R. v. W.D.

Invitation to Sexual Touching - W.D. was alleged to have invited a minor to engage in sexual activity for money.  The incident was alleged to have occurred in a public library and the Crown sought to rely on video surveillance, library records, computer records and the accused's own statement to prove their case.  After a dogged pursuit of disclosure and multiple application under the Charter all charges were stayed.

R. v. S. B.

Sexual Assault - S.B. was alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman who he had met late at night.  Client was steadfast in his innocence and provided a very different account of the events that resulted in the attendance of the police.  Key inconsistencies in the complainant's story were brought to the attention of the Crown as well as the presiding Justice at a Judicial Pretrial.  Although trial dates were set the charges were stayed in the face of those inconsistencies.

R. v. T. M.

Sexual Assault - T.M., a refugee, was accused of improperly touching the child of a family friend.  Even though the charge was serious and Mr. M had no permanent status in Canada nor anyone to bail him out he was released on his own recognizance after a contested bail hearing.  All Charges eventually withdrawn.
R. v. D.T.

Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference - Client alleged to have sexually assaulted a child by pinching her chest area as well as to have exposed himself to the child while inviting her to touch him in a sexual manner.  The Crown relied on the testimony of the complainant, her mother and her doctor as well as physical evidence.  At the conclusion of a three day trial the client was acquitted on all charges.
R. v. K.M.

Sexual Assault, Etc. - Client alleged to have taken part in a serious sexual assault that including extremely aggravated circumstances.  A former co-accused of K.M. had made a statement against him in exchange for a lighter sentence.  Further, the Crown sought to rely on an ambiguous statement of K.M. that could have been interpreted as an admission of guilt.  At the conclusion of a week-long trial highlighted by a lengthy cross examination of the co-accused turned Crown witness the jury returned verdicts of not guilty for all charges after only 45 minutes of deliberation.
R. v. M.M.

Sexual Assault - Client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a foreign exchange student/roommate.  Inconsistencies in the complainants statement were brought to the Crown’s attention at the pretrial stage and all charges were withdrawn without the need for a trial.


R. v. G.G.

Assault - Client alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend while drunk.  Crown relied on photographs of injuries to the complainant as well as a 911 tape which allegedly recorded the fight.  Client testified in his own defence and the complainant was carefully cross examined on her memory and her actions since the alleged assault.  After trial the client was acquitted of all charged.
R. v. H.K.

Assault – Client’s ex-wife alleged that the client grabbed her from behind, choking her and whispering insults in her ear in the presence of their child.  At trial the complainant was carefully cross examined in relation to her allegations as well as the meaning of several e-mails she had sent to Mr. K prior to reporting the incident to the police.  Mr. K testified in his own defence and was acquitted of all charges.



R. v. J.C.

Criminal Harassment – Client charged with criminal harassing a Crown Attorney by leaving multiple phone messages and sending boxes of offensive material.  All charges withdrawn.
R. v. S.B.

Criminal Harassment – Client charged with criminal harassment after allegedly posting pornographic material of his ex-girlfriend on the internet.  All charges withdrawn.


R. v. P.S.

Impaired Driving, Etc. - Client charged with “Over 80” and impaired driving after crashing his vehicle on the D.V.P..  Client readily admitted to the police that he had been driving.  A successful application pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedom saw all evidence that the client was driving, including his own confession, excluded.  Client acquitted on all charges.
R. v. V.S.

Dangerous Driving, Failure to Remain – Client charged with dangerous driving and failing to remain after crashing into the side of a building.  Charges dismissed mid-trial.