FIREARMS CASE WINS

Practice Areas

FIREARMS CASE SUCCESSES

Practicing exclusively as defence lawyer since 2001, Richard has a long track record of defending individuals facing firearm related charges:

  • R. V. S.H. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: Police execute search warrant at S.H.’s residence. Locate 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 issued without reasonable grounds.
    • Result: Application granted. Trial judge agrees with defence counsel that S.H’s Charter rights were violated and all evidence must be excluded. All charges dismissed.
  • R. V. M.K. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: Vehicle involved in high speed pursuit with police that results in crash. Firearm is thrown while driver (who was alleged to be M.K.) and passenger flee the seen. Chase is captured by in-car police camera.
    • Defence Strategy: Establish there is reasonable doubt that the firearm was discarded by the driver. It was equally plausible that the firearm was discarded by the passenger.
    • Result: Judge finds there existed reasonable doubt that M.L. threw the firearm. Not guilty of possessing a firearm.
  • R. V. K.A (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: During traffic stop police locate firearm on floor of rear driver side passenger. Also locate cell phone in same area.
    • Defence Strategy: Reasonable doubt that K.A. possessed the firearm. The firearm, along with phone, belonged to individuals who had recent access to the rear seat.
    • Result: Not guilty of possessing a firearm.
  • R. V. C.J. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: C.J. facing charges of attempt murder with firearm. Police alleged that client shot victim on subway platform during afternoon commute.Victim identifies C.J. as the shooter in statement to police and at preliminary hearing.
    • Strategy: Point to lack of evidence identifying client as the shooter. The earlier identification of C.J. was unreliable. Victim had dispute with C.J., which was motive for false identification.
    • Result: Not guilty of all charges.
  • R. V. T.M. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: Client is arrested as part of Guns and Gangs investigation “Project Sizzle”. Police locate loaded semi-automatic handgun inside T.M’s residence.
    • Strategy: Apply to exclude evidence pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on basis that no grounds existed for the issuance of the search warrant.
    • Result: Judge agrees that T.M.’s right to be free from unreasonable search violated. Charge of possession of firearm dismissed.
  • R. V. N.S. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: N.S. faced serious charges of possession of a firearm and pointing a firearm. The Crown theory was that N.S. and the complainant became involved in a dispute after leaving the bar. The argument escalated to the point that N.S. retrieved and threatened to shoot the complainant with the firearm.
    • Strategy:  Mr. Fedorowicz’s cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses effectively exposed their lack of credibility and reliability. Their evidence was inconsistent and did not make sense.  In his closing address to the jury, Mr. Fedorowicz pointed to the absence of any independent evidence that supported the police version of events. The end result being that the Crown had failed to establish his client’s guilt to the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Result:  Jury finds N.S. not guilty after deliberating for only a few hours.
  • R. V. P.D. (TORONTO)
    • Allegations: Police respond to the home of P.D., who was going through a stressful period in his life. Police eventually discover that P.D. had a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and kept several firearms at the residence. Police seized the firearms and commenced an application for forfeiture under s. 117.05(2) of the Criminal Code.
    • Strategy:  Mr. Fedorowicz presented the Crown Attorney with package of material to establish his client was a law-abiding citizen that was going through a temporary, stressful time in his life.  The firearms were otherwise safety stored. As a result, there was no reasonable basis to believe that the return of the firearms would present any risk to either P.D. or a member of the public.
    • Result:  Crown abandons application for forfeiture.  Firearms returned without a hearing.