I've only seen part one of this. But it is an excellent series. And it is an important reminder as to why it is so important to have a strong criminal defence bar. This is the kind of injustice that will continue to make me fight for justice until I can't fight anymore.
Honoured to accept the acknowledgement of our team by author Nick Kaschuk! "24(2) - Exclusion of Evidence under the Charter" gives practical guidelines as to how the law should be applied. The 2nd Edition, released by LexisNexis, is the only criminal law book that deals exclusively with Charter s 24(2), taking an in-depth look at jurisprudence. What an honour to play a part, however, small, in the gargantuan task of writing this book.
Good lawyers have to understand what they're looking at in context. We achieved a withdrawal of criminal charges by unpacking the significance of the evidence against our client, and it meant the opposite of what the police suggested. An undercover police officer tried to entice our client into committing criminal offences by posing as a teenage girl online, and he was then charged with seven serious criminal offences - several of which require intending to commit an actual offence with the person he believed he was communicating with. When an undercover officer is attempting to entrap a man, and he still does not follow through and commit any actual offence (or even meeting), the intent is simply not there. Yet the police tried over and over to get our client to do something he actually had no intention of doing. We went through that evidence and explaining its significance in context of the communications our client had with the undercover officer. By articulating that context to the Crown, we were able to get all charges withdrawn. And our client gets to move on with his life.
When someone is accused of a crime, that person's life changes overnight. Whether defendants did anything wrong or not, their lives become subject to the scrutiny of the Crown as soon as the police charge, "assault" or anything like it. To go through the court process is not only costly financially, it costs emotional strain on both the defendant and the defendant's entire support network. When there are children involved, they have to go through the trauma of not knowing if their parent is safe, not knowing if their parent is telling the truth, not knowing if they're going to see their parent go to jail.
We are excited to announce that our associate Roselyn Kelada-Sedra has been named as one of the Top Civil Litigators in Toronto by ThreeBestRated.ca. Roselyn works tirelessly to provide comprehensive and competent legal services to our clients and she continues to make us here at Sabsay Lawyers proud. Congratulations, Roselyn! https://threebestrated.ca/civil-litigation-lawyer-in-toronto-on
In the corporate world of Ontario, people may unknowingly become involved in operations or circumstances that turn out to be unlawful. However, if this happened to you, it might be challenging to get out of it without legal implications. This could involve something as simple as shoplifting or complicated involvement in an internet scam or sophisticated financial fraud. These schemes could include operations such as shell corporations and fund transfers to offshore accounts.
This article originally appeared on The Lawyer's Daily website published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.
October 26, 2017: Today we successfully defended another DUI case. Our client had to swerve to avoid another vehicle which did an impromptu U-turn in front of traffic without looking. That u-turning driver was charged with careless driving as a result of that action. Because our client had to suddenly swerve to avoid t-boning the u-turner, his car ended up striking a telephone pole and was totalled. He did the appropriate thing and reported the accident to police. Upon arrival, police detected the odour of an alcoholic beverage and demanded a breath sample into a roadside screening device. The resulting "fail" resulted in an arrest for "drive over 80". But no rights to counsel were provided upon our client's arrest so that he would know whether or not to speak to a lawyer. The Crown argued that this defect was cured at the station when rights to counsel were allegedly reiterated. But that station rights to counsel did not comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's admonishes in a case called R. v. Bartle. A further problem was the use by the state of statements made by the client which he was compelled to make by virtue of the duty to report found in the Highway Traffic Act. There were also problems with the fact that a proper breath demand was not made at the time the arresting officer made the arrest. The result was that we got halfway through the first day of trial when the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charge in return for a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.
September 26th the Superior Court of Justice released its decision for one of our clients. The client had signed a contract for six months' of work of computer consultancy services. The client was acknowledged by everyone to be a top expert in his field. Before he signed the contract he advised the employer (technically, the company who contracted with him as an independent contractor) that he had a very dated criminal record for one offence committed when he was in high school (a place he graduated from many years ago). He also filled out a criminal records check form on which he declared this same dated conviction. He obtained the necessary security clearances and began working pursuant to the contract. A month later his contract was terminated when the records check came back, confirming the exact conviction he had already declared. In other words, he was fired for something he had already disclosed before he was hired. The company sought to rely on a termination clause we argued was void for vagueness. The judge agreed and our client was awarded damages for all the money he would have made for the unexpired portion of the contract.
July 18, 2017, we attended a mediation in a wrongful dismissal claim. The client had been replaced while convalescing from surgery. It was his position that he had told his employer before he left for the surgery that he required up to six months before his doctor would clear him to return to work. The employer made no note of that conversation and later, assumed he had told them he'd be gone for "three months". Because the client was getting physiotherapy in his homeland, he was not available to receive letters from his employer demanding to know where he was and why he hadn't returned to work yet. When the client notified the employer that he was ready to return to work after his stated six months he was told he had already been replaced without notice on the basis that he had abandoned his job of almost twenty years. The client sued for wrongful dismissal and the employer maintained their right to fire without notice on the basis of a breach of the employee's duty to let her employer know where she was, and how she could be reached, even if away for medical reasons. While the actual terms of the settlement must be kept confidential, it is our view that a fair settlement was achieved with the client receiving the equivalent in pay in lieu of notice we said he deserved.