Sexual Offences
Sexual Offences
R. v. P.M
(2025)
Our client was charged with sexual assault. At trial, focused cross-examination identified the existence of third-party records bearing on credibility and a possible motive to fabricate. We successfully applied for production of those records and used them effectively in cross-examination and submissions. After a multi-day trial, the court acquitted our client.
R. v. B.B.
(2025)
Our client was charged with sexual assault. A careful defence strategy was formed to focus on pre-trial applications. These applications were necessary to ensure that the trial judge was aware of important context to the allegations. Client was acquitted of all charges after a 3-day trial.
R. v. R.L.
(2024)
The client was charged with sexual assault. An independent witness came forward with evidence contradicting the allegation and supporting the client’s position that the incident did not occur. Following effective pre-trial advocacy, all charges were withdrawn before trial.
R. v. J.N.
(2024)
Our client was charged with sexual assault following a Tinder date. Disclosure included text messages exchanged that night which were inconsistent with the prosecution’s narrative. At trial, the complainant’s testimony departed from her earlier account. Through focused cross-examination using those messages as prior inconsistent statements, the defence raised a reasonable doubt. The court acquitted our client of all charges.
R. v. J.M.
(2024)
The client was charged with sexual assault and consistently maintained his innocence. We advanced the matter diligently, but delays in disclosure caused the case to drag on. After a successful Charter application based on unreasonable delay, all charges were stayed.
R. v. H.M.
(2023)
Our client, a professional athlete, was charged with sexual assault arising from a domestic incident. Given the profile and collateral consequences, we focused on early resolution. Through targeted pre-trial advocacy—including detailed written submissions and conferences with the Crown—we addressed evidentiary and reliability issues that undermined the prosecution’s case. Before the matter proceeded to trial, the Crown withdrew all charges.