Sexual assault is one of the most stigmatizing offences in the Criminal Code. This is very unfortunate because some allegations of sexual assault are actually quite minor, but nevertheless a conviction carries a terrible stigma.
Most cases of sexual assault are a “he said, she said” situation and involve issues of credibility and reliability.
In these situations, it is important to have an advocate that is skilled at cross examination and has a curious mind. As sexual assault cases unfold, evidence that is helpful to the accused can often be found. I have successfully defended many persons accused of sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation and internet luring and am committed to providing a thorough and vigorous defence against charges of sexual assault.
Retaining a criminal lawyer when charged with sexual offences is of vital importance. Sexual assault charges in Toronto and elsewhere often come as a shock and can be extremely difficult to deal with. A criminal lawyer can assist at every stage of the process including how to clear your name if the charge is not ultimately proven. If you have been charged with a sexual offence or are concerned you may be charged with a sexual offence, please call for a free consultation.
Related Representative Work
R v. E.G.
Client was acquitted of sexual assault after a judge alone Superior Court trial. The accused’s step-daughter claimed that she had been sexually assaulted for years when she was a child approximately 15 years in the past. After hearing all of the evidence, the judge was not satisfied that the sexual acts that she claimed had occurred. A key witness in the case that was located by the defence was able to testify that the complainant frequently left her daughter in the care of the accused up until the time that he was charged. Other witnesses from the accused’s family also testified about the improbability of sexual acts frequently occurring in the home without their knowledge. As a result of these issues, the judge acquitted the accused.
Read more about this case on AdvocateDaily.com.
R v. D.C.
A youth client was acquitted of sexual assault after a four day judge alone trial in Brampton. In this case, the accused gave evidence that sexual acts occurred after the sexual assault allegedly occurred. In order to question the complainant about other sexual acts, a pre-trial application was brought by the defence, which was granted by the trial judge. At trial, the complainant denied any other sexual acts occurred other than the one alleged assault. The defence found a previous statement to a police officer where the complainant claimed two sexual assaults had occurred. The accused testified that there were multiple sexual acts that were all consensual. As a result of the inconsistency in the complainant’s evidence, the judge acquitted the accused.
R v. T.J.A.
A youth client was acquitted of six of seven counts of sexual assault with respect to four complainants. In the setting of a high school, four teenaged girls came forward to the police and claimed that the accused had groped them in a sexual manner. The defence argued that the evidence of the witnesses were tainted by rumours that had been circulating at the school about the accused. Other witnesses were called by the defence to contradict what the four complainants had said. The trial judge was not satisfied that sexual assault had occurred with respect to three of the four complainants and acquitted the accused of most of the counts.
Read more about this case on AdvocateDaily.com.
R v. D.W.
In part two of the trial after an unsuccessful joinder and similar fact application by the Crown in 2014, the accused was acquitted by a jury of gross indecency and indecent assault (historic sexual assault). The complainant had alleged that my client had sexually assaulted him multiple times as a child approximately thirty year in the past. The only issue for consideration was whether the Crown had proven that the acts alleged occurred and the jury ultimately found that there was insufficient evidence to convict. The defence also won two pre-trial applications: a Section 486.2 application of the Crown to allow the complainant to testify by video link, rather than in the courtroom, and a 276 application of the defence to allow the defence to cross-examine the complainant about prior sexual acts.
R v. D.W.
Client charged with gross indecency and indecent assault (historic sexual assault) was acquitted in a judge alone trial at the Superior Court of Justice in Brampton. In a case involving historic allegations from the 1970’s, the judge found that the accused’s evidence was believable and the complainant’s evidence was problematic and not credible and found that it had not been proven that the events alleged actually occurred. Prior to the trial, the defence won a joinder application and similar fact application. These pre-trial application prevented another complainant from being joined and giving evidence at the accused’s trial.
R v. N.G.
Client was acquitted of sexual assault after a three day trial at Old City Hall. In a judge alone trial, the judge ruled that the complainant’s version of events was not credible beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.
R v. P.R.
Client was discharged after a preliminary inquiry of sexual exploitation, sexual interference and sexual assault x 5 at 1000 Finch Court in Toronto. After two days of cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown invited the Judge to discharge my client due to the problems with the evidence. The Crown had sought my client’s detention at the bail hearing and was originally seeking a penitentiary sentence.
R v. F.R.
Client was acquitted of sexual assault after two day trial at 1000 Finch Court in Toronto. The complainant had serious issues with her memory of the incident which led to a finding that the charge had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
R v. B.N.
Client charged with assault and sexual assault had charges withdrawn at College Park in Toronto. The Crown was originally seeking six months custody before serious issues with respect to the complainant’s credibility were raised prior to trial.