The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
The client retained Grace Condello to represent him on a charge of Careless driving causing the death of a pedestrian. A pedestrian was struck at an intersection at an expressway in the late evening. The driver was making a left hand turn. Police investigation determined that the low-pedestrian area was dimly lit and the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing.
Ms. Condello was able to show, through a defence expert, that the lighting at the intersection was thirty percent less than the recommended lighting and showed that the circumstantial evidence suggested that the driver could not have seen him while making the turn. Ms. Condello was able to arrange a resolution in which the driver entered a plea of Fail to Yield to pedestrian and the charge of Careless driving causing death was withdrawn.
S.R. was arrested for Impaired Driving in December of 2022 out of Newmarket courthouse. In September of 2023, S.R. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger &Partners LLP as his counsel. Mariya sent several e-mails to Newmarket courthouse and received a response that court information was marked as error and, therefore, there were no charges before the court. In October of 2023, S.R. was served with summons to attend court on the charge of Over 80. Mariya received disclosure and analyzed it. Further on, she moved very quickly with a pre-trial and trial scheduling. A 2-day trial was scheduled to commence in October of 2024. In April 2024, Mariya brought an application to stay the charge under s.11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for unreasonable delay. The base of the application was that the commencement of a trial was more than 18 months from the day of the arrest which was a s.11(b) violation as per R. v. Jordan case ruling by Supreme Court of Canada. During an application hearing, the judge requested additional court transcripts and suggested to counsel that the most recent case law prohibits her from taking arrest date as the Jordan s. 11b start of the countdown date. Mariya has done some legal research and amended an application. She argued that even though the delay was under 18 months, it was still unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. There was a full day hearing in July of 2024. After some deliberations, the judge agreed with Mariya’s application that the delay was unreasonable. In her reasons, the judge advised that Mariya correctly noted the issues with the way police proceeded – they laid information very late, they laid information incorrectly at first and took a lot of unnecessary time. The judge further emphasized that Mariya moved the matter very fast – she had a trial scheduled in under 3 months from the first court date to a trial scheduling date. Lastly, the judge relied on the case law provided by Mariya. The judge stayed the charge and vacated the trial dates.
Charge of Failure to Provide a Breath Sample stayed after a four-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. At around 2 am in downtown Toronto, P.A. was observed driving his vehicle. It was alleged that P.A. was driving his vehicle in the opposite direction in a one-way lane. It was also alleged that P.A. was unable to locate his driver’s license, insurance, and vehicle permit for several minutes after he was pulled over. Due to this alleged behaviour, the arresting officer decided to demand a sample of P.A.’s breath into an approved screening device. P.A. was unable to provide a sample after repeated attempts. P.A. was then arrested for Failure to Provide a Sample and given a ticket for driving on the wrong side of the road. P.A. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. After careful review of the disclosure, Yuvika Johri discovered that the arresting officer had violated P.A.’s section 10 (b) charter right- Rights to Counsel. Yuvika Johri brought an application to stay the charges and argued this case for 4 days. During the trial, Yuvika Johri cross examined the arresting officer and was able to show that the officer had not facilitated P.A.’s request to speak with counsel for over two hours. Additionally, defence was able to show a systematic problem with the police not following through their obligations of facilitating access to counsel upon request by an accused. A stay was granted against the Failure to Provide a Breath Sample charge and the HTA ticket was withdrawn. A favourable outcome was important for P.A. as he was a permanent resident, and a conviction could have meant deportation for him.
P.L. was charged with impaired operation and over 80, as well as possession of a scheduled substance, Newmarket courthouse. P.L. was driving in York Region when he was pulled over for speeding. The police officer observed beer cans inside the vehicle as well as an open beer can near the driver. After failing an ASD test, P.L. was taken to the police station. P.L. provided a breath sample that was over 80 milliliters of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. P.L. was searched and narcotic tablets were found on him in small amounts without a prescription. P.L. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya reviewed disclosure and found that police officers did not properly administer ASD device. In addition, Mariya requested P.L.’s medical history and was able to negotiate with the prosecutor that even though the drugs were not prescribed, P.L. was in medical need of the medication. P.L. entered a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and all criminal charges against him were withdrawn.
C.K. was a youth charged with Dangerous Driving out of the Newmarket courthouse. C.K. had no driver’s license. However, he borrowed his uncle’s vehicle and met with his friend at a parking lot of a community centre. While exiting the parking lot, C.K.’s vehicle collided with his friend’s vehicle and the two crashed into a bystanders’ vehicles. One bystander sustained minor injuries. Police attended and he was charged. C.K. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure carefully and then conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. However, no desirable resolution was reached, and a trial was scheduled. Mariya took the position that based upon the statements provided and eyewitness evidence, it would be difficult for the Crown to establish Dangerous Driving. After having set the trial date down and preparing for trial, the Crown Attorney reached out to Mariya and asked to resume resolution discussions. Mariya was able to negotiate an outcome where the client pled guilty to a highway traffic offence of careless driving and a criminal offence of dangerous driving was withdrawn.
N.D. was charged with Driving a Motor vehicle while suspended contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Initially ND attempted to deal with matter and conducted an Early Resolution Meeting. The Prosecutor refused to withdraw the charge. Grace Condello was retained to defend N.D. In her defence investigation, she was able to obtain a letter from N.D.’s psychiatrist establishing that N.D.’s licence was suspended after the doctor notified MTO. However, N.D. was not provided with any notice. Thus, the charge of Drive a Motor Vehicle under suspension was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of impaired operation and ‘Over 80’. U.I. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. After analysing the case, Christopher Assie noted that the Crown would likely be unable to prove that U.I. had operated or was in care and control of the vehicle when the police arrested him following a car accident. After a contested trial, the trial judge granted the defence application for a directed verdict of acquittal. In granting the application, the judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for a jury or judge that was properly instructed to convict and found U.I. not guilty of impaired operation/driving and Over 80.
BM was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by a drug. He was a young member of the military when he was stopped by the military police for suspected impaired operation of a motor vehicle by having consumed marihuana. The investigating officer conducted a standardized field sobriety test on BM and concluded that his ability to drive was impaired. BM’s licence was suspended immediately for 90 days pursuant to Ministry of Transportation regulations. Three weeks after he was initially charged with his criminal charges, he was caught driving and charged under the Highway Traffic Act with driving while disqualified. BM retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him against both sets of charges. BM was very concerned because a criminal conviction may end of his military career. Furthermore, he lived in an area that required that he be able to drive. A careful review of the disclosure for the impaired by drug charge revealed that the investigating officer conducted the standardized field sobriety test improperly. Mr. Assie was able to demonstrate to the prosecutor the mistakes the officer did while administering the test. The prosecutor recognized that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the criminal charges. Once the criminal charges were withdrawn, Mr. Assie approached the prosecutor who was dealing with the Highway Traffic Act prosecution and convinced her that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a young man for driving while disqualified when the reason he was disqualified was because of a charge that should never have been laid. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge.
Client found not guilty of impaired driving and over 80 after trial. R. D. was found by police in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle. Police charged R.D. with Impaired Driving. At the police station, R.D. blew 125 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. Thereafter, police charged R.D. with Over 80. R. D. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP as his criminal defence lawyer. Ms. Protsenko crafted a meticulous defence for R.D. She drafted cross examination questions for the police officers, examined all the details of the case including maps, car keys and uber receipts, interviewed witnesses, prepared R.D. to testify and analyzed current law on care and control. After a two day trial in person and via zoom, R.D. was found not guilty on all the charges.
Criminal charges of operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. G.C. hired Christopher Assie. A witness contacted 911 after finding G.C. asleep at the wheel at a stop sign. The police located the G.C. and investigated him. He was immediately arrested and taken to the police station. At the station he blew over 100 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. After putting together a carefully crafted package of material, counsel was able to convince the Crown to withdraw the criminal charge and permit the client to plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
