SEARCH WARRANTS

SEARCH WARRANTS

Regina v. I.Z. (2016)

Charges of Firearms Trafficking, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Weapons Dangerous and Possession of Overcapacity Magazines all withdrawn just prior to trial. I.Z.’s home was searched pursuant to a Warrant issued on the primary basis of a confidential source’s information. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, reviewed the Warrant, and the Information to Obtain, and sought source material. It was obvious very little was done by police to confirm the C.I.’s information. In fact, surveillance of I.Z. yielded nothing of probative value although the Justice issued the Warrant. Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional Challenge alleging a section 8 Search and Seizure breach such that the Warrant was deficient and provided insufficient grounds for a search. Just prior to trial, the crown conceded that the Warrant was thin and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. Vu 2013 SCC 60

The Appellant was charged with Production of Marijuana and acquitted at trial, but the British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal. The issue was whether the police needed a search warrant to search through a computer found in the grow op. The Court agreed with the CCLA argument that the police needed a search warrant before searching a computer.

R. v. T.L.V. – SCC Court File 34687 (2013)

On March 27, 2013 Allan Manson of Neuberger & Partners appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that the police should need a search warrant which names a computer if they intent to search a home for a computer and look through it.

R. v. J.B. (2012)

Drug Charges withdrawn, and property seized under RCMP search warrants ordered returned on eve of Superior Court trial in Kingston after Neuberger & Partners brings extensive Charter Argument to quash 3 search warrants.

Regina v. Stalas and Caldero

Challenge to Police Authority to Search a Vehicle without Warrant and Consent
Read the Court of Appeal Judgement

Regina v. R.B. (2009)

Charges of Fail to Comply Recognizance withdrawn before trial pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols filing a Charter Application alleging a section 8 breach after police officers entered client’s premises without valid consent.

Regina v. Tang (2006)

Client acquitted after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Possession Stolen Property Over; Possession of Credit Cards and Credit Card Reader, Fraud . Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.

Regina v. Lee (2005)

Client acquitted after five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Madame Justice Lowe on charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marijuana . Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.

Regina v. Kim (2005)

Client acquitted after one week trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Mr. Justice McDougall of charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Proceeds of Crime . All evidence excluded on a successful Charter Application for violations of the client’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention.

Regina v. Izzo and Izzo (2005)

Charges of Production of Marijuana withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after successful challenge to the authority of the police to search.

Regina v. Stalas and Calderon (2004), Ontario Court of Appeal.

Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and possession of proceeds of crime. Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were convicted at trial in Superior Court in Thunder Bay. Their application alleging an unlawful and arbitrary detention and arrest, and unlawful search and seizure, in addition to a violation of their Section 10(b) right to counsel were dismissed by the trial judge. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were acquitted by the Court of Appeal on all charges. The Court of Appeal found that there were violations of the accused right to be free from an arbitrary detention and arrest, as well as their Section 8 rights to be free for an unreasonable search and seizure. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that upon a stop without further grounds for a search must provide all persons with their right to counsel. Since the police officers did not provide rights to counsel and an opportunity to contact counsel prior to obtaining consent or proceeding with the search, there was a violation of the their Section 10(b) rights as well. According all charges were acquitted on appeal.

Regina v. Young Burg (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charges of production and possession for the purposes of trafficking. A Charter Application was advanced at trial alleging breaches of Section 8 of the Charter, namely a violation of the accused rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The grounds for the warrant were deficient, as such the warrant was quashed by the Superior Court and all evidence was excluded. Accordingly, all charges against Mr. Young Burg were dismissed at trial.

Regina v. Helland (2004)

Charge of importing over $1/2 Million of cocaine stayed, after defence cross-examination of lead investigating RCMP officer, in respect to violations of Ms. Helland’s rights under Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Regina v. Bouzalas (2004)

Charges of production of marijuana, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. Withdrawn after Charter Application advance for breaches of Sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter, arising from an unlawful search and seizure by the police.

Regina v. Vo (2004)

Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn after Charter Application advanced for unlawful detention and search. All seized funds returned to the client.

Regina v. DaSilva et al. (2004)

Charges of conspiracy to produce a controlled substance, steroids, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a controlled substance and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn at trial after Charter Application for breaches of Section7, Section 8 and Section 11(b) of the Chapter involving deficient warrant and abuse of conduct by police in the course of the execution of the search. All seized items and funds returned to the clients.

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.

Back to Recent Successes

CONTACT INFORMATION

1392 Eglinton Avenue West
Toronto, ON M6C 2E4
Fax (416) 364-3271

COVID-19 UPDATE

On behalf of Neuberger & Partners LLP posted in COVID-19 on Tuesday March 17, 2020.

At Neuberger and Partners, we are monitoring the COVID-19 situation and have implemented safety measures to ensure the safety of our clients and staff. Our priority is and always will be the health, well-being and safety of our staff, clients and colleagues.

We have put in place various measures to prevent and minimize the impact of COVID-19:

  • In addition to standard hand-washing habits, our staff are washing hands before and after every client interaction;
  • All individuals entering our office will be required to use our hand sanitizer to ensure the safety of our other clients and staff;
  • Regular disinfecting of our offices, public areas, meeting rooms and board rooms as well as increasing the frequency of disinfection of higher-traffic surface areas;
  • If a lawyer or client who has a scheduled meeting is feeling unwell, they will be strongly encouraged to stay home;
  • For the time being, we will avoid greeting clients and colleagues with our usual handshakes;
  • We will make every effort to ensure our firm will be stocked up with extra tissue and alcohol-based hand sanitizer; and
  • We will monitor and stay informed from the Government of Canada and World Health Organization for facts as they become available. We will ensure all staff and team members are educated on symptoms and are well informed on prevention and best practices.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Will the firm still run if there are closures?

  • We are committed to assisting our clients. We remain open to assist our clients at this time (following aforementioned standards for health and safety). For clients who wish to communicate with our firm virtually, we have the technology for virtual meetings and are able to respond to the needs of our clients in a manner best to protect our staff and clients’ health.

Are staff and lawyers set up to work virtually?

  • All lawyers and staff are set up to work virtually and continue to assist clients and one another remotely. All lawyers are available via telephone, email and virtual video conferencing.

What is the court situation? How will we deal with court closures?

  • At this time, the Superior Court of Justice is closed from March 17, 2020 to June 1, 2020 – unless a judge orders otherwise.
    If you have a March matter, your matter will be postponed to June 2, 2020.
    April matters will be postponed to June 3, 2020 and May matters will be pushed to June 4, 2020.
  • Similarly, the Ontario Court of Justice will be closed for 10 weeks for all out of custody matters in criminal practice court. In custody matters will still be addressed. It is unclear if out of custody matters such as trials or preliminary hearings will continue since the courts have left this decision to the discretion of the judges. However, Bail courts will remain open for the time being.
  • The Court of Appeal for Ontario has suspended all scheduled appeals until April 3, 2020. But we are still able to file materials and apply for urgent appeals to be heard.
  • We will advise clients by email of their next Court date.

How can payments be made?

  • Payments can be made via e-transfer and visa payments can be made over the phone.

If I have to deliver something to my lawyer, how shall I go about it?

  • For clients who wish to drop off documents but do not wish to come in contact with any one at the firm, you are encouraged to drop them off in our mail slot in front of our office.

We will be open and available for any questions, comments or concerns. Please call (416) 364-3111 for any further information.

Stay safe and healthy,

Joseph Neuberger