Sexual Offences
Sexual Offences
R. v. J.R.R. (2026)
Our client was charged with sexual assault after being wrongfully identified as the perpetrator. The actual offender was another man who had been at the same bar that night. We brought critical identification evidence to the Crown's attention, and all charges were withdrawn, with no peace bond required.
R. v. A.T. (2026)
Our client was charged with sexual assault by someone he had met on his college campus. The complainant's account contained significant inconsistencies, and there was evidence that she had sought money from our client before making her complaint, an issue that went directly to credibility and motive. We met with the Crown to set out these problems, and all charges were withdrawn one month before trial.
R. v. Z.H. (2026)
Our client was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault following the breakdown of a long-term relationship. A methodical review of the couple's text-message history revealed communications that were inconsistent with the allegations. These issues were carefully presented to the Crown and all charges were withdrawn before trial dates were set.
R. v. S.A. (2026)
Our client was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter with someone he met on a dating app. We met with the Crown to highlight significant inconsistencies and evidentiary problems in the complainant's statement, issues that undermined any reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn, with no peace bond required.
R. v. D.L. (2025)
Our client was charged with sexual assault involving a family member. The matter proceeded to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, where, on cross-examination, the complainant's account changed significantly from her original police statement. Our client was acquitted of all charges.
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.
R. v. T.S. (2023)
Our client was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement, and the case against him appeared overwhelming. At trial, the Crown's key witness was calm and convincing. But through a sustained, methodical cross-examination, her account steadily unravelled, and by its end the case had collapsed. The Crown itself asked that our client be acquitted of all charges.
