S. E. N. v. M.E. et al

The client brought an action against the defendants for breach of contract. After three days of trial and extensive cross examination of all the defendants, Mr. Khan was successful in winning the case and the judge ordered in the client’s favor.

GN.H. v. S

The client brought action against the defendant who him post dated cheques which were not honoured. The matter was resolved without a trial and Mr. Khan was able to get an order by the judge in the client’s favor for the loaned amount as well as costs and interest.

C.F. v. K. P. and S.F.S.

The client was sued for non-payment by the contractor who had executed shoddy construction work at the client’s commercial premises which set back his business by months. With the advice of Mr. Khan, the client counter sued the contractor for shoddy work and losses incurred due to delay in the execution of work by the main contractor and sub contractor. The case is currently in progress.

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.

V.S. and family v. Canada Citizenship and Immigration

The client and his family came to Canada and applied for refugee claim. They got the work permit and their children went to school. The family also got medical coverage.
My client’s family did not fall in the category of “Convention Refugee” but they made a claim to be the “Persons in need of protection” from their home country.The evidence was weak and his claim was denied in Refugee Protection Division(RPD).He appealed the RPD decision in Refugees Appeal Division(RAD).But appeal was again denied.
I pinpointed some legal errors in the decisions made by RPD and RAD panel.I have filed for leave for judicial review and the Judicial Review in Federal court.The matter is pending and we are waiting for oral hearing, after the chaotic times due to COVID 19 is over.

E. T. W. v. N.D.

The client was undergoing a tough divorce with allegations of spousal abuse, custody of children, division of property and support to contend with. Effective negotiation and involvement of judge in case conference resulted in the client having access to children. While the issue of children’s custody, division of property and spousal support has yet to be resolved due to the delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

S. I. v. M. I.

The client and his spouse were stuck in an acrimonious marriage for over 25 years and have made the difficult decision to file for a divorce. The division of property is highly contested, and decision is pending due to Covid-19 pandemic.

S. v. S.

My client sought to escape an abusive marriage with matters such as children’s custody, division of property and spousal support being highly contested. However, due to Mr. Khans efforts and negotiation skills, as well as the involvement of the judge in case and settlement conferences has narrowed down the issues for the trial which has been adjourned due to Covid 19 pandemic.

J.K. v. S.K.

The client and his spouse initially wanted a divorce but during a case conference with both the party’s lawyers present, the couple was encouraged to reconcile. They amicably resolved issues of children’s custody, division of property and spousal support. This made the episode bearable since it saved them time and money.

K.K.D v. D.J.

The client was previously represented by another lawyer but after she retained Mr. Khan, he was able to advocate on her behalf which resulted in her receiving spousal and child support through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO). Furthermore, effective negotiations with the respondents lawyer also led to the resolution of all other contested issues.

A.I. v. S.

The client engaged Mr. Khan as his lawyer to deal with an ongoing matter of child custody involving the Children Aid Society which wants to apprehend the two minor children by removing them from the care of their parents. It is currently being dealt with via tele-conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

H. v. R.

The client and their spouse sought to end their acrimonious marriage but through open communication and reconciliation strategies by the lawyers, the couple decided to reconcile, and the case was withdrawn.

R v. I. S. C.

The client was charged with assaulting his girlfriend and upon his return to Canada was arrested at the airport on the strength of a warrant. There was audio, video recordings and text messages of the complainant which were evidence of her strong motive to fabricate the story. Mr. Khan after a short trial was able to get the charges withdrawn due to his skilled presentation of evidence and cross examination of the complainant. The Crown found that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction of the defendant based on the above.

Rv. K.O.

The client, a youth, was charged with distributing sexually explicit images on the internet. Mr. Khan was able to get the charges withdrawn by getting her youth diversion which is an alternative to prosecution and ensures that youth do not enter the criminal justice system at such a vulnerable age.

R v. B. A.

The client was charged with shoplifting and theft of under $5000.00. Mr. Khan was able to get him diversion and have the case withdrawn.

R v. J.S.

The client was charged with possession of stolen property. The Crown’s position was very strict, and they were asking for jail time. After lengthy negotiations and pointing out the weaknesses in the Crowns’ case, Mr. Khan was able to get the client a conditional discharge.

R v. J.S.

The client was charged with assault due to disciplining his teenage son. The Crown’s position was strict because he was inebriated at the time. After strong and lengthy negotiations and pointing out the weaknesses of the crowns’ case, Mr. Khan was able to get the client a conditional discharge.

R v. J.S.

The client was charged with assault, multiple instances of driving under the influence and accident causing damage to property. The Crown had a strong case and sought 6 to 9 months of jail time. The client due to his past behaviour of not following his bail and repeat offences was not eligible for further bail, however Mr. Khan was able to negotiate his bail, which he again broke. After his third DUI which entails a three months minimum sentence, there was a high chance of a long sentence, but Mr. Khan was able to ensure that he got enhanced credit for time served during a sentencing hearing held on Zoom (video conferencing) due to Covid-19 pandemic.

R v. G. J.

The client was charged with assault and the Crown’s position was very strict with regards to jail time. Mr. Khan however was able to negotiate and bring ensure that the client was offered a conditional discharge.

R v. E-T. W.

The client was charged with multiple instances of assault, with a very strict Crown asking for jail time. Mr. Khan’s advocacy resulted in a conditional discharge for the client.

R v. R.A.

The client was charged with domestic assault and the Crowns strict position meant that negotiations were not successful. Upon Mr. Khan’s advice the client rejected the option of a peace bond and instead pled not guilty. After a skillful trial and strong cross examination of the complainant by Mr. Khan, the client rejected the option of a peace bond and Mr. Khan was able to charges against the client were withdrawn due to high likelihood of acquittal.

R v. A.R.T

The client was charged with sexually assaulting his girlfriend. It was a tricky situation since the client acknowledged that consensual sexual activity took place. Usually, the complainant’s prior sexual history can not be addressed, however, Mr. Khan was able to obtain permission to cross examine the complainant using s276 (Seaboyer application). The matter was resolved when the Crown withdrew the case against the client before the trial.

R v. K.J.

The client had a falling out with their spouse which included intent to divorce and assault charges. The client pled not guilty and the Crown agreed to a conditional discharge after consulting the judge. The matter was resolved in the clients’ favour and resulted in reconciliation.

R v. B.S.

The client was charged with assaulting their spouse and after vigorous negotiation with the Crown, Mr. Khan was able to get the client enrolled in the Partner Assault Response Program (PAR Program). This resulted in the withdrawal of charges, a favourable outcome for the client.

R v. R.J.

The client was charged with multiple offences including multiple counts of possession of drugs, drug possession for the purpose of trafficking, and driving while impaired with drugs. Crown had overwhelming evidence but Mr. Khan’s negotiation on the clients’ behalf had him diverted toward rehabilitation instead of facing incarceration.

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.