• Call Us Now

    +1 905-614-0134
  • Email

    waseylaw@gmail.com

Successes


R v. J.P.

The client was charged with Assault under Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada, in 2017. Crown was asking for jail time but following the advice of Wasey Law that the Crown did not have sufficient evidence and there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, the client plead not guilty. Mr.Khan was able to successfully advocate that the complainant had motive to fabricate and an axe to grind with the client. As a result, J.P. was discharged in 2018.


R v. T.L.

The client was charged with Assault under Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada, in 2017. Mr.Khan successfully adopted the trial strategy and argued that the complainant had consented to the physical contact, and as a result, the charge was marked dismissed and T.L. was discharged in 2018.


R v. R.J.

The client was charged with Possession of Drugs (Heroine) contrary to Section 4(1) of CDSA and Theft under Section 334(b) of Criminal Code of Canada. Crown was insisting on jail time. The client had fallen sick and this matter was delayed due to R.J.’s health issues. At trial Mr.Khan was able to get the client a conditional discharge in January, 2019. Wasey Law also advised R.J. as to how to get help rehabilitating from substance abuse.


R v. T. R.

The client was charged with Abduction of a Child. A judge and jury trial was set in the Superior Court of Justice with a three day preliminary hearing scheduled prior to the trial. Crown tried their level best to get the committal for trial and were asking for 18 to 24 months jail time. However, Wasey Law firm did legal research, put up a very hard defence and was able to get the client discharged after a highly contested 3 days preliminary hearing by impeaching all the Crown witnesses. By showing that the Crown did not have any evidence and that there was no prospect of conviction, Wasey Law saved the client thousands of dollars and agony of going through a lengthy trial.
NOTE: The test is: "whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty". The analysis requires the judge to determine whether "there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction". The evidentiary standard is "very low". There must simply be "some or a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence". In R v T.L., Mr.Khan was able to establish that even that did not exist and therefore the case must not go to trial and instead be dismissed.


R v. S.A.

S.A. was charged with domestic assault in 2018 contrary to Section 266 of Criminal Code. By emphasizing upon the need and importance for family unification and the lack of evidence, Mr.Khan was able to resolve the matter without going to trial and within 15 days of the client approaching him.


R v. A.A.

The client was a youth, charged with uttering threats and showing weapon to the complainant. Contrary to Section 88(1) of Criminal Code, Possession of weapon for dangerous purposes. A.A. was co-accused in a group of young offenders. Effective advocacy and negotiation skills got the client diversion and he was approved for (YJC) Youth Justice Committee Program, a restorative justice diversion program. His parents were involved in his restoration and reformation. A.A. had to do some community service hours before the charges were withdrawn in May, 2018. Now A.A. is an excellent student moving forward in life with no criminal record.


R v. I. K.

The client was charged with domestic assault in 2018 contrary to Section 266 of Criminal Code. Mr.Khan was able to establish that the act or omission of the client did not fall under the definition of assault and argued during judicial pre-trials that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The charges were withdrawn and client entered into a “Peace Bond” which allowed I.K.’s criminal record to remain clean as long as he did not offend in the following year. The client is also safe from the consequences to his residency in Canada if convicted.


R v. S.H.

S.H. was charged with Domestic Assault in 2019. The client shopped around, met some lawyers and was highly upset with the situation. Mar.Khan was able to reassure S.H. and point at the inability of the crown to meet the evidentiary burden on the standard of proof required. During pre-trial discussions the charges were dropped, thus the family was reunified in less then a month.


R v. A.B.

The client was charged with domestic assault in 2018. The report was made by a third party and not the spouse. Charges were eventually withdrawn due to effective negotiation and lack of evidence. Mr.Khan was successful in getting the family together in a very short span of time, without going to trial.


S.M. (Civil and Criminal)

The client S. M. was facing double jeopardy in 2017. S.M. was under investigation for the criminal charges of Fraud Over 5000.00 as well as facing a civil suit for fraud by a financial corporation. Effective counselling and handling of the situation resulted in S.M. being exonerated from both the difficult situations, in later months of 2018.


T.A. (Family Law)

The client was undergoing a tough divorce which required an advocate to safeguard T.A.’s best interests. The matter was resolved to the clients satisfaction.


R v. D.S. (Criminal and Immigration)

The client had overstayed in Canada after the expiry of his student visa and was apprehended by the CBSA. Furthermore, D.S. was facing charges in multiple jurisdictions under Section 351 (1) of Criminal Code of Canada for Possession of B&E instruments, Section 355 for Property obtained by crime over $5,000.00 and Section 145 for breach. D.S. was released from Maplehurst on his detention review hearing and his charges were brought down to such a situation that he got conditional discharge on minor offences and major offences were either marked withdrawn or will be upon the completion of community service. Wasey Law strategized in such a manner that the client did not face deportation due to the criminal charges.


G.T. (Immigration Law)

The client had a serious criminal record in Europe. G.T. was arrested by Canada Border Service Agency for being in breach of bail condition but Mr.Khan was able to establish that G.T. was not in fact in breach and the client was released after a contested detention review hearing in 2018.


G.S. (Immigration Law)

The client L.S. had landed in Canada on ETA (Electronic Travel Authorization) and was detained on immigration hold by CBSA because of suspicion of being in breach of Canadian laws. L.S. did not have any money or surety (bondsperson). Wasey Law arranged for the clients bail through Toronto Bail Program in March, 2018.


L.V. (Immigration Law)

The client L.V.. had landed in Canada on ETA (Electronic Travel Authorization) from eastern europe and was detained on immigration hold by CBSA because of suspicion of being in breach of Canadian laws. L.V did not have any money or surety (bondsperson). Wasey Law arranged for the clients bail through Toronto Bail Program in April, 2018.


DON’T HESTITATE TO ASK

FREE CASE EVALUATION