Case Examples

The following summaries are just a brief example of criminal cases that I have represented my clients on, the names of the clients have been removed in order to protect their privacy and confidentiality:

R . v. Youth - Manslaughter

Client charged with Manslaughter following altercation at a house party. Through the course of a three week jury trial I was able to illicit evidence that almost all of the underage partygoers were intoxicated, that the majority of those at the party engaged in taunting and teasing of my client. In cross-examination on e of the deceased friends confirmed that he had thought that the incident was an accident. Following over one and a half hours of crown submissions and an hour and fifteen minutes of defence submission the jury deliberated for less than 3 hours and returned a Not Guilty verdict. See link below for newspaper coverage.

Link to Newspaper article verdict

Link to Newspaper article submissions

R v. L - Attempt Murder, Theft Over $5,000, Dangerous Driving, etc

 Client was charged with Attempt Murder, Theft Over $5,000, Possession of Stolen Property, Dangerous Driving, Driving While Prohibited. Through negotiation with crown counsel and as a result of cross-examination of crown witnesses at Preliminary Inquiry charges were reduced to Possession of Stolen Property, Dangerous Driving and Driving While Prohibited.

R. v. K - Fraud Over $5,000, and Fraud Under $5,000 x 6

In this high profile matter the client was charged with defrauding members of the public by soliciting donations while claiming to have cancer. The case was broadcast worldwide as a result of the nature of the fraud and the use of Facebook to further the fraud. The initial public outcry in this matter was extreme and widespread. At the bail hearing of the matter I was able to convince the court that the client could be released on her own recognizance without a surety but under the supervision of the John Howard Society.

Following the client's release I has able to provide additional details regarding the client to Crown in order to negotiate an appropriate plea while substantially reducing the number of charges.

CTV Coverage of Press Conference following Initial Guilty Plea

Hamilton Spectator report after plea entered

This matter took 8 months to resolve, however, in the end the court and the Crown agreed that the appropriate sentence for the client and society was one of a Conditional Sentence followed by probation. This sentence was structured specifically to address any underlying issues leading to the criminal behaviour while allowing the client to serve the sentence in the community rather than being incarcerated. During the length of this matter I was able to gather substantial material supporting this type of sentence through community and health care agencies.

CBC news report from sentencing

CP24 news report from sentencing

Toronto Star article on sentencing


R. v. Youth - Assault With a Weapon, Assault, Mischief, Uttering Threats

Client pled guilty to one charge of Assault Weapon other charges were withdrawn following negotiation. At the sentencing of the youth crown counsel sought a short sharp custody sentence and because the offence is listed as a primary compulsory offence the crown submitted that a DNA sample of my client should be taken pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Criminal Code. During my submissions to the court I argued that the client had no previous record and was unlikely to commit future offences and as such the appropriate sentence was a conditional discharge (not considered a criminal record). I further argued that notwithstanding that the Criminal Code made a DNA sample mandatory, that the compulsory provisions of the criminal code in fact violated the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act which is the primary Act when dealing with young offenders. On sentence the judge agreed with my submissions and ordered a Conditional Discharge and refused to order the DNA sample be taken. Crown counsel later withdrew their appeal of the DNA decision prior to it being heard at the upper level court.

 R v. F - Impaired Driving by Marijuana

 Client charged with Impaired Driving, by marijuana. Through cross-examination at trial I was able to establish that the urine sample given by the client could not prove that he had recently consumed marijuana. Sample only showed use within the last 6 months. I was also able to establish that evidence was insufficient to prove impaired driving. Following a two day Cross Examination of the Crown's lead witness, the RCMP Drug Recognition Expert, Crown offered to accept a plea to a provincial driving violation of Driving Without Due Care and Attention, as a result the client retained his drivers' license and only received a minimal fine. 

R v. O - Breach Conditional Sentence

 Client originally received Conditional Sentence. Within the first week the client was cited for breach and the Conditional Sentence was revoked. I was able to make submissions to court and convince the sitting Judge that it was appropriate for the Conditional Sentence to be re-instated allowing my client to return to her home and finish the remainder of the sentence in the community.

 R v. F - Bail Hearing Breach Probation

 At a Bail Hearing Crown Counsel was requesting that my client be held in custody until such time as his trial matter was completed, likely three months later. The Crown argument was that since my client was homeless the court had no option but to hold him in custody. At the Bail Hearing I was able to provide evidence through the arresting officer showing that even though my client was in fact homeless he was easy to find and not a flight risk. I was able to adduce evidence from the officer that he felt he would be able to locate my client within 30 minutes if asked to do so. My client was able to avoid further time in custody and return home pending his trial.

 R. v. H - Possession Controlled Substance, Possession of a Prohibited Weapon, etc.

 This youth client was charged with Possession of a Prohibited Weapon, Theft Under $5,000, Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Weapon Dangerous to a Public Purpose. Through negotiation with Crown Counsel I was able to secure an agreement to send the client to Extra-Judicial Measures thereby saving the client from the stigma of a criminal record.

 R v. H - Sexual Interference

 Client was charged with Sexual Interference. Through cross-examination at trial I was able to show the court that the crown witnesses had very differing stories on key points of evidence as well as a motive for the witnesses to make up the allegation due to a previous dispute with my client. My client was acquitted on all charges and one of the crown witnesses was reprimanded for attempting to interfere with the evidence of another witness.

R. v. R. - Robbery

Client was charged with Robbery. Thorough cross-examination of the two alleged victims I was able to show that their stories were dramatically different. After 4 days of trial the crown withdrew all charges against my client without even waiting for the judge to rule.

R. v. Youth - Cause Disturbance, Fail to Comply, Fail to Appear, Bail Hearing

Youth client charged with Cause disturbance, Fail to comply with bail conditions, and Fail to Appear for Court. Crown counsel refused to consent to release of the client on conditions. After a four hour bail hearing the Justice of the Peace accepted my argument that under the youth criminal justice the court had to release the client under the circumstances as the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not permit the court to detain a youth for child protection purposes. The Children's Aid Society had a location for the client to stay and while she had outstanding charges in three separate jurisdictions she had no criminal record. Client was released on her own recognizance.

R. v. P - Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference

Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference. Through the course of cross examining the complainant, the client's ex-wife, it become clear that the allegations were only made after the client had been forced to go to family court in order to find where his children had been taken by the ex-wife. The ex-wife had absconded with the children to Saskatchewan from Ontario. In cross examination it was revealed that the complainant was clearly lying on at least two important details. As a result of the cross examination crown counsel stayed the charges against the client.

R. v. J. - Assault Police Officer

Client was charged with Assaulting a Police Officer. The allegations made by the police officer were that after stopping my client and requesting that he exit his vehicle he became aggressive and attempted to strike the officer and possibly tried to gain control of the officer's firearm. As a result the client was tazered at least twice. At trial the two officers provided conflicting testimony on cross examination and I was able to submit that the Officer who tazered my client may have misperceived the situation due the charged atmosphere during the traffic stop. the client was acquitted on all charges.

R. v. Youth - Break and Enter

Client charged with Break and Enter into his high school in the early morning hours following Halloween. Client was found in the school by security officers with a broken window on the front doors and the school snack shop had been broken into as well. Through cross examination of the security officers it was ascertained that there was another person in the school that the security officers had seen running away and that my client had voluntarily walked up to the security guards. One officer admitted in cross examination that he had forced my client to the ground and arrested him without providing him an opportunity to explain why he was at the school. On direct examination of my client I was able to adduce the evidence that he had entered the school after hearing glass breaking and wanted to investigate prior to calling police. The judge determined that my client's version was possible, particularly given the security officers testimony on cross examination. Client was acquitted on all charges.

R. v. C. - Domestic Assault and Uttering Death Threats

Client had been charged with assaulting his wife by pushing her against the bed, throwing her against a mirror, and grabbing her by the throat, as well as telling her that he was going to kill himself but take her with him. During cross-examination at trial the complainant wife admitted that she had been continuing a extra-marital relationship with a couple and that the client had expressed his disagreement with the relationship. Complainant admitted that she and the client were always telling each other that they would kill another and that the client never actually struck out at her but rather testified that the alleged actions were similar to trying to contain an argument or self-defence. During submissions I argued that that there were no realistic threats given the history of the couples relationship and that any reasonable person that was aware of the full nature of the couples relationship would not have taken the words as a threat. The court accepted my argument in full and the client was found not guilty on all charges and was able to continue his career as a cross border truck driver.

R. v. Mc - Murder

Client charged with murder of neighbour. Police arrived on scene to find client with blood on his hands and neighbour deceased with apparent trauma to his head. Through negotiation with Crown counsel client was released on bail allowing him to return to live with his family while the matter worked it's way through court. As the matter went forward I was able to show weaknesses in the case against my client. As a result of continuing work through negotiation, research and investigation the charges against the client were dropped in their entirety by the Crown following the release of the autopsy report.

Link to Newspaper story


These are just a few brief examples of some of the criminal cases I have been involved in. For more information on how I may be able to help you with your criminal matter please call 905 338 0756 for a consultation.    



  DISCLAIMER: The information on this site is not intended as legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should seek legal advice from a lawyer.

  Copyright 2008 Brendan Neil

Providing Criminal representation in south central ontario including; Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Brampton, Mississauga, Hamilton, Toronto and surrounding areas

Brendan Neil Barrister & Solicitor, Criminal Trial Lawyer
Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Criminal Law