Decisions

In R. v. RK, Mr. Stein defended a physician who had been charged with 10 drug, forgery and fraud offences in connection with his medical practice. Mr. Stein filed constitutional and Charter motions with an eye to throwing out the case. The Crown prosecutor was intent on “throwing the book” at RK. At the last minute, the Crown decided to bring in an expert witness to help torpedo RK’s defence of medical need. Mr. Stein brought a motion to exclude the witness. The trial judge decided that if the Crown insisted on leading the witness, RK was entitled to an adjournment. Otherwise, the witness was excluded. You can read the judgment on the expert evidence here.

In R. v. SL & QZ, two police officers attended at Mr. Stein’s clients’ apartment residence. They knocked on the door and, when the clients opened the door slightly, asked to be let in. When the client requested that the officers leave, they forced their way inside and seized a number of cannabis plants in various stages of growth. They arrested SL and QZ, obtained a search warrant, and charged the clients with various criminal charges.

At trial, Mr. Stein, along with co-counsel Kim Schofield, argued that the police had violated their clients’ rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and their right to speak to counsel under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial judge agreed, excluded the evidence and the clients were acquitted.

In R. v. JL et al., Mr. Stein’s clients were charged with numerous offences arising out of a massive cannabis growing operation located near St. Catherines. In preparing for trial, Mr. Stein and his co-counsel Kim Schofield prepared Charter applications to exclude the evidence. A week before the trial, the Crown provided the Defence with thousands of new video files. These files had been obtained by the police shortly after the arrest but they had never acted on them until now. Mr. Stein and his co-counsel obtained an adjournment to review the files. Five months later they argued that the entire time it had taken to bring their clients to trial had violated their right to a trial in a reasonable time. The trial judge agreed and threw out all of the charges. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. YL and TD , the police once again over-extended themselves in a drug investigation. Here, they relied on an overflying thermal infrared device, hydro readings, and an anonymous tip to obtain a search warrant and seize a large number of drugs. Mr. Stein and his co-counsel successfully argued that the search was illegal and the drugs should be excluded. Both clients were acquitted. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. HP, Mr. Stein and his co-counsel Kim Schofield took over a case involving a large production of cannabis plants. HP had been convicted and was now facing a mandatory minimum 3 years in prison. Mr. Stein successfully argued that the mandatory minimum sentence violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The law was struck down and declared to be of no force or effect. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. CJ, Mr. Stein acted as co-counsel for an individual charged with attempted murder. A shooting had occurred in the Osgoode subway station in downtown Toronto, where a man was short twice by a person wielding a firearm. The issue was identification. Along with his co-counsel, Mr. Stein was able to torpedo the Crown’s case by showing various weaknesses in the evidence. None of the witnesses could do more than show a resemblance to CJ. CJ was acquitted by his trial judge. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. PF, Mr. Stein defended an individual accused of sexual assault by his former common law spouse. The allegations were serious – sexual violence directed against a partner and the father of her children. The problem: the accuser had previously sworn under oath that PF evidence that was directly contrary to these allegations. Mr. Stein led that evidence before a judge and jury with such effect that the Crown felt compelled to withdrew the charges in the middle of the trial. PF was completely exonerated.

In R. v. PB, Mr. Stein’s client was an individual who found himself in a direct conflict with the police. He lived across from police headquarters. He believed himself to have been the target of police harassment. Whether or not this was happening, these were serious issues that needed to be addressed. In a series of events that led up to his arrest, someone made a series of 911 calls that included a set of threats directed at various city sites and the chief of police. Someone also mysteriously parked a car in front of police headquarters. Subsequently PB was arrested in the back of that building after he dumped garbage by the back doors.

Unfortunately, there was no openness on the part of the Crown to deal with these charges with some kind of mental health diversion. Jail was not the proper way to help PB deal with the issues he was facing. Given the impasse, Mr. Stein and PB took the case to trial. Through expertise in cross-examination and trial strategy, Mr. Stein was able to convince the jury to dismiss all of the charges. You can about the outcome of this case here.

In R. v. LB, Mr. Stein’s client was charged with a number of offences that alleged that he and a co-accused robbed a man of his gold chain after stalking him at a flea market in Downsview. LB and his friend allegedly followed the man, got into his car, held him up at gun-point, stole his chain, and then ran from the car after it crashed at an intersection. At a lively trial before a judge and jury, Mr. Stein repeatedly showed weaknesses in the credibility of the Crown witnesses and raised questions about what had really happened. The jury acquitted.

In R. v. PM , Mr. Stein represented an individual convicted of sexual assault and designated as a dangerous offender. At trial, the judge had prevented PM’s lawyer from making oral submissions on the issue of PM’s sentence. On appeal, Mr. Stein argued that this violated PM’s fundamental right to be heard. It is one thing to ask for written submissions in addition to oral ones. It is quite another to prohibit a lawyer from making oral submissions altogether. On appeal, the court set overturned the sentence and ordered a new hearing. Mr. Stein represented PM alongside his colleague Erin Dann. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. BF, Mr. Stein’s client was convicted of various offences in connection with possession of a 12-guage shotgun and ammunition. The firearm was found in BF’s friend’s room. The friend originally attributed ownership to BF but later recanted. At trial, the Crown relied on intercepted telephone conversations and voice identification by a police officer. Mid-way through the trial, the judge realized that he had once presided over another case where BF was the victim of a shooting and had testified. He had heard BF’s voice before. Nonetheless, he convicted. On appeal, Mr. Stein and his co-counsel, Joe DiLuca, convinced the Court of Appeal that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial. The conviction was overturned. You can read the judgment here.

In R. v. BF, an individual was convicted at trial of possession of a firearm found in his trunk. He had unsuccessfully argued that his Charter rights were violated. On appeal, Mr. Stein convinced the Court of Appeal that the trial judge had made various mistakes that tainted the conviction. The result was that BF had not had a fair hearing. The conviction was quashed. You can read the judgment here.

Mr. Stein regularly volunteers his time at the Court of Appeal to help self-represented inmates pursue their appeals. He has often been successful. In R. v. Robertson, Mr. Stein convinced the court to quash a restitution order imposed on a man convicted of various break and enters, who unfortunately suffered from an opiate addiction. In R. v. Barkhouse, Mr. Stein helped reduce a man’s sentence who had pleaded guilty to possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking from 15 to 9 months. In R. v. Beebee, Mr. Stein persuaded the Court to take six months off a four-year sentence for possession of a loaded firearm. In R. v. Ochrym, Mr. Stein convinced the court to overturn convictions for Advertising Sexual Services and Procuring the sale of Sexual Services.