Navigating the complexities of drug offences requires a strategic and knowledgeable approach. Our team diligently investigates, analyzes evidence, and builds strong defences.
R. v. A.K. (Toronto)
Allegations: A.K. faced serious gun and drug charges, including, unauthorized possession firearm, point firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and fentanyl. Police responded to a call of a male with a firearm in downtown Toronto. It was alleged the A.K. pointed a firearm at an officer while fleeing from the police. Later, a search warrant was obtained for a vehicle, which contained approximately 50 grams of fentanyl that the Crown alleged belonged to A.K. The evidence included video and A.K. being found in possession of the car keys for the vehicle within which the drugs were located. If convicted, he faced a custodial sentence of 6-8 years in jail.
Result: The firearm charges were dismissed. The trial judge further agreed with Mr. Fedorowicz that the Crown failed to establish possession of the drugslocated inside the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and, a result, his client was found not guilty.
R. V. A.A. (Brampton)
Allegations: A.A. faced charges of drug trafficking, possessing a loaded firearm, and possessing proceeds of crime following a police investigation spurred by a confidential source. The search of A.A.’s residence uncovered drugs, cash, and a loaded firearm.
Strategy: A challenge was made under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the search warrant was issued without sufficient reasonable grounds, violating A.A.’s privacy rights. The defence successfully argued that the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Result: A.A. was found not guilty of all charges due to the exclusion of evidence.
R. V. S.H. (TORONTO)
Allegations: Police execute a search warrant at S.H.’s residence. Locate a loaded firearm in addition to a large quantity of heroin and cocaine.
Defence Strategy: Application filed asserting violations of S.H.’s constitutional rights. That search was unlawful because the police misled the issuing justice, and that the warrant was granted without reasonable grounds.
Result: Application granted. The trial judge agrees with the defence counsel that S.H.’s Charter Rights were violated and all evidence must be excluded. All charges were dismissed.
R. V. J.F. (TORONTO)
Allegations: During the traffic stop, police located a quantity of drugs in the centre console of the vehicle.
Defence Strategy: Argue that the police search of the vehicle was unlawful in violation of J.F.’s constitutional rights.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown without need for trial.
R. V. D. S. (TORONTO)
Allegations: The client was charged with conspiracy to import large quantities of cocaine through the airport.
Defence Strategy: Application to stay charges based on violation of client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as mandated by s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights.
Result: Charges stayed by the trial judge.
R. V. A. S. (TORONTO)
Allegations: The client was charged with trafficking cocaine.
Defence Strategy: Establish that the police search of A.S. violated his constitutional rights.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown prior to trial.
R. V. D.L. (NEWMARKET)
Allegations: Police located drugs and a firearm within the vehicle that D.L. was driving during a traffic stop.
Defence Strategy: File application to exclude evidence based on police racial profiling of D.L. in violation of his constitutional rights.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown prior to trial.