R. v. Hadfield (2020) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
The client was charged with second degree murder. The circumstances are tragic. The client, an individual with a long history of mental health and addiction struggles, attempted to rob the victim at a gas station in downtown Toronto. A forceful kick was delivered to the victim’s upper body, which caught him off guard. Sadly the victim fell backwards and landed on his head and suffered significant trauma and eventually passed away. There was no question that the client was responsible for the victim’s death. The issue was whether the client’s actions were manslaughter or murder. In this case, murder required a finding that the client knew the kick was likely to kill the victim, but proceeded anyways. Given the circumstances however, particularly the fact that only one blow was delivered to the victim, and given it would have been very unlikely that the client could have foreseen that the victim would fall backwards directly onto the back of his head, Mr. Stastny argued the correct result was manslaughter, not murder. The trial judge agreed, and acquitted the client of murder. Although this case is tragic in many ways, the result was correct in that murder is the most serious offence known to law and should be reserved only for those individuals who demonstrate intent to kill or knowledge that their actions are likely to cause death. This was not such a case and the defence put forth was necessary to protect this client from the consequences of a conviction for murder.
R. v. C.O. (2019) (Ontario Court of Appeal)
The client had a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was convicted of 5 counts of trafficking cocaine to an undercover officer. Mr. Stastny did not represent the client at trial. Rather, the client contacted Mr. Stastny from the jail after he was sentenced to assist with an appeal. Mr. Stastny was able to quickly arrange for the client to be released on bail pending appeal. Ultimately, Mr. Stastny determined this client should never had a trial and the matter ought to have been plea-bargained. It was determined that a sentence of 90 days on weekends could likely have been secured if the matter did not proceed to trial. In any event, Mr. Stastny was still able to have the sentence effectively cut in half on appeal, reduced from 15 months to 8 months jail.
R. v. T.G-F. (2019) (Ontario Court of Appeal)
In the courtroom, whomever wins last, wins. Mr. Stastny argued this drug trafficking case at trial, and in a decision that came as a big surprise, the trial judge ruled against the defence on every issue. The client was sentenced to a year in jail at the conclusion of the matter. Undeterred, Mr. Stastny arranged the client’s release on bail pending appeal, and made his case again at the Court of Appeal, arguing his client was unlawfully arrested, searched, and then strip-searched, and that the trial judge was wrong on each and every conclusion she came to in justifying the police conduct. In a lengthy decision, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Stastny, found 4 distinct Charter violations occurred, excluded all the evidence as having been obtained unlawfully, and acquitted the client on appeal .
R. v. R.G. (2019) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client was charged with possession of carfentanil for the purpose of trafficking, a dangerous opiod significantly stronger then fentanyl. The client was walking through a Toronto community housing property when he was placed under arrest by a Special Police Constable for trespassing. The Special Constable had dealt with the client in the past and knew him to be a suspected drug dealer. The Special Constable claimed the client had been previously trespassed and was in breach of a bail condition not to be at the property, justifying the arrest. Mr. Stastny however brought out in cross-examination of the Special Constable, that the client was never properly trespassed in the past, and that the Special Constable knew nothing about the bail conditions until after the arrest had already occurred. Further, Mr. Stastny brought out in evidence the unreasonableness of the arrest, as the client was actually not even on the property in question and was in fact walking away from the building when he was arrested. In a highly critical decision, the trial judge found as a fact the police evidence was highly misleading, and most likely fabricated on key points, and acquitted the accused and excluded all evidence from the trial. The decision made the news nationally.
Read more Read more: Globe and Mail Article
R. v. J.H. (2019) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
The client was charged with drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. His house was raided and searched by the Toronto Police Service. Evidence of a marijuana grow operation, drug trafficking, and the firearm itself were all seized. In a pretrial motion, Mr. Stastny sought the exclusion of evidence of the search of the client’s cellular phone. The phone was searched without a warrant at the time of the client’s arrest. Mr. Stastny argued the search was illegal and not in accordance with the rules laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada for warrantless searches. In a detailed ruling, the experienced Superior Court Judge dealing with the matter excluded the evidence from the cellular phone. Then, after a trial by jury, the client was acquitted of all charged except for one minor count of trafficking marijuana where the client received an absolute discharge. This was a tremendous result overall.
R. v. O.M. (2018) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client was originally arrested in mid-October 2017, after his house was searched by the Toronto Police Service and commercial quantities of crack and heroin were located. The client was released on bail. In early December 2017, the Toronto Police Service came back again and executed another search warrant at the client’s residence. This time, they were looking for a firearm. No firearm was located, but similar quantities of crack and heroin were found. Accordingly the client was charged once again with the exact same offences. The search warrant of December 2017 was extremely problematic, however. An informant told the police that he was aware of a man who dealt drugs out of the same building as the client, who always carried a firearm. A fairly generic description was provided that could theoretically have matched the client. The police used this very limited information in their possession to then obtain the search warrant for the client’s home. A careful review of the search warrant application revealed that the police were only able to obtain the warrant by drafting their application in a very misleading way. They omitted very relevant information from the October 2017 search warrant application that effectively pointed away from the client as being the purported drug dealer in possession of a firearm, and then inappropriately spun the very limited information they did have in the client’s direction. Absent was any mention of the fact that if the client was in fact in possession of a firearm at his apartment, the firearm certainly was not located when the apartment was thoroughly searched in mid-October 2017, approximately 6 weeks earlier. Mr. Stastny took the position that the police search warrant application could not stand in law as it did not provide a reasonable basis to conclude the client was in possession of a firearm at his home when the information contained in the October 2017 search warrant application was also considered. The trial judge agreed, and in very critical reasons directed at the Toronto Police Service, excluded all evidence located from the search and seizure, and found the client not guilty of all charges.
R. v. S.C. (2018) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client was facing charges of trafficking in cocaine to an undercover police officer. The Toronto Police Service Drug Squad was investigating the client. They had obtained confidential informant information that the client was using the street name “Tiny”, was dealing drugs in the Etobicoke area of Toronto, and was using a specific phone number. A police officer who was on a brief Drug Squad placement was instructed to go undercover and call the phone number provided by the informant for the purpose of negotiating a cocaine purchase. The undercover officer was successful and the client, after some initial hesitation, agreed to meet the undercover officer. The client completed the deal and was arrested immediately thereafter. Mr. Stastny brought an entrapment application at trial. The problem he identified with the police investigation was that the informant tip had not in any way been verified before the undercover officer called the client. Beyond that, the undercover officer, before in any way satisfying himself that the client was in fact dealing drugs as part of his phone conversation with the client, requested that the client sell him a quantity of cocaine. The defence of entrapment has been recognized to arise when police provide a suspect the opportunity to commit an offence without any objective suspicion that either the suspect is dealing drugs or that drug dealing is occurring in the area where the suspect is engaged by the police. Mr. Stastny’s position at trial was the unverified tip did not provide the police reasonable suspicion, and neither did anything the client said over the phone, before he was asked to sell drugs. Further, Mr. Stastny argued that locational exception did not arise in this case, as even if the cellular phone number could be properly viewed as a “location”, the police had no objective suspicion that drug dealing was occurring at the phone number they called. The Crown responded with various arguments, relying on cases from the British Columbia Court of Appeal and several more recent cases from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Indeed, there is a division of case law on entrapment in the context of dial-a-dope investigations and the Court of Appeal of Ontario is considering the issue presently. Ultimately, the trial judge agreed with Mr. Stastny’s position that the Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal decisions on entrapment were in conflict with the decisions the Crown was relying upon, and declined to follow those decisions. The trial judge also went further and very much rationalized the existing binding case law on entrapment, which the Crown had argued was erroneous in principle. Mr. Stastny’s client was acquitted and all charges were stayed on the basis of entrapment.
R. v. N.M. (2018) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Another identity case. Very similar to the case of D.G. that Mr. Stastny successfully defended in 2017, this case involved the sale of cocaine to the exact same undercover police officer as that case. Again, the undercover officer negotiated the sale of the cocaine by cold calling the dealer and providing a cover story as to where she got the phone number from. Again, one deal was done, and then further attempts were made by the police to deal with the suspect that failed. Again, as in D.G., the identity evidence involved the undercover officer testifying in Court that the person they met to buy the drugs from was the same person they were provided a photo of at the police briefing prior to the deal. This was of course alleged to be the accused, Mr. Stastny’s client. Different than D.G., however, the police went further in this case and had the undercover officer participate in a photo line up several months later, once it became apparent the suspect would not meet them to do a second drug deal. The undercover officer picked Mr. Stastny’s client out of the photo line up and indicated he was the person who sold her the cocaine on the earlier occasion. The Crown argued there were two identifications in the case and the totality of the evidence proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Stastny, on the other hand, argued the identification evidence was fatally flawed as firstly, the photo from the initial police briefing was never produced in Court, and therefore it was not even certain if that photo was of Mr. Stastny’s client. And further, the photo line up was tainted as the police officer who participated in the lineup, on her own evidence, may have been shown the exact same photo at the initial briefing that was contained in the photo lineup and that she ultimately picked out. Ultimately, like in D.G., the trial judge found the identification evidence to be unreliable, and the client was found not guilty.
R. v. J.C-L. (2017) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client–a young person as defined by the Youth Criminal Justice Act–was charged with possession of a loaded firearm. In the late evening hours of New Years Day, a shooting occurred in a public housing high-rise in Toronto. One victim was struck by a bullet in his throat area and seriously injured. The three suspects involved in the shooting fled and made their way to a nearby townhouse complex where they took refuge in a particular home. This was the client’s townhouse where he resided with his mother. Video surveillance showed the three suspects being let into the home late in the evening by what could only have been the client. The three suspects remained in the home for some time, and eventually two of them left. The third suspect also left briefly, but then returned to spend the night. The Toronto Police Service attended the shooting crime scene and eventually viewed surveillance video which led them back to the client’s house to investigate. In the early morning hours, the Emergency Task Force pulled all the occupants out of the home. A search warrant was then applied for and inside the home, in the basement, a loaded firearm was located. The basement was an area almost exclusively used by the client. His documents were found in the basement and testimony was heard at trial which confirmed the basement was used almost exclusively as the client’s social area. The Crown’s position was that loaded fiream was possessed by the client, either on his own, or jointly with the three suspects who attended the home after the shooting and who the client let in. The defence position was that the three suspects had the opportunity to hide the firearm in the basement without the client knowing and in particular the 3rd suspect who returned to the home in the late hours of the night would have had every opportunity to stash the firearm in the basement prior to being pulled out of the house by the Emergency Task Force. Ultimately the trial judge agreed that a reasonable doubt existed as to whether the client had knowledge of the firearm that was located, notwithstanding very suspicious facts, and the client was found not guilty.
R. v. T.O. (2017) (Ontario Court of Justice)
This decision illustrates the difficulty in proving even what appears to be the most straightforward criminal case. The client was charged with trafficking cocaine directly to an undercover police officer. The Toronto Police Service made arrangements to meet an individual at a McDonald’s for the purpose of purchasing a quantity of crack cocaine. The deal was completed in the bathroom of the McDonald’s and immediately after the seller was arrested. The client was purported to be the seller. Indeed, the reality was the client was arrested at the McDonald’s immediately following the deal, and taken to the police division, and then to court for a bail hearing where he was released to come back to court at a later date to face the charges. The problem the Crown encountered with its case when it made it to trial was that not enough evidence was led to satisfy the trial judge to the criminal standard of proof that Mr. Stastny’s client was the seller. On the one hand, one might have difficulty understanding how Mr. Stastny’s client ended up being prosecuted and brought to court to answer to the charge as the seller if he was not the person who sold the crack cocaine to the police. On the other hand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, the issue of how Mr. Stastny’s client got before the Court to answer to the charge was not one that the defence needed to address. The onus was on the Crown to prove the seller was the defendant. In this case, two police officers who testified merely pointed to the accused, sitting next to his lawyer Mr. Stastny in court, and said he was the seller. This type of identification evidence has a history of being treated with great caution in law as the accused who is on trial in the courtroom setting is in a vulnerable position where there is a natural susceptibility for a witness to identify the accused as the perpetrator. Given the law’s disdain for this type of identification evidence based on its dangerous unreliability, the trial judge in this case acquitted Mr. Stastny’s client and found she was not satisfied to the proper standard of proof that he was the person who sold the drugs to the police.
R. v. F.F. (2017) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, a very serious offence that typically results in a penitentiary sentence on conviction. An ounce and a half of heroin was seized after a search warrant was executed at the client’s residence by the Toronto Police Service. The large quantity of heroin was located in the rafters of the basement, well hidden. The client was arrested prior to the search warrant, after leaving his house, and was taken back to the police division to be detained pending the execution of the search warrant. While detained, the client gave a very incriminating statement to the police, describing the precise location of the large quantity of heroin hidden in his residence. The statement however was obtained under suspicious circumstances. The client was never told his residence was the target of a search warrant at the time of his initial detention, and as a result, under the assumption he was charged with only a minor drug offence relating to the drugs found on him at the time of his arrest, waived his right to a lawyer. Further, regardless of whether the client wished to speak to a lawyer or not, the Toronto Police Service made the operational decision to suspend the client’s right to counsel pending the search warrant. This information was also not initially shared with the client. Most concerning however, the confession was given off camera when camera’s were readily available, and the context of the confession was very much informed by the fact that the interviewing officer agreed to not use a battering ram to break the door of the residence down during the same exchange where the client provided details as to where the drugs would be located in the home. As it came out, the client had a concern that his wife might have a heart attack if the door was broken down, given her health issues. Mr. Stastny elected to have a Provincial Court trial on this matter, waiving any preliminary inquiry, and drew a very experienced trial judge who fully appreciated the concerns surrounding the manner in which the confession was taken. Mr. Stastny chose to focus on one issue only at trial, the admissibility of the statement, and abandoned all other legal issues. Ultimately, the trial judge agreed that the statement could not be proven voluntary given the context in which it was taken, and excluded the statement from evidence. As a result, the trafficking charge relating to the ounce and a half of heroin was dismissed.
R. v. D.G. (2017) (Ontario Court of Justice)
A common mistake made by defence counsel is to effectively make every part of a case an issue and protract the proceedings beyond what is reasonably necessary. There are cases where this approach might have to be utilized, as a response to a case that has absolutely no weakness or occasionally an unreasonable prosecutor that cannot be negotiated with. But the most effective defence typically involves a focus on what truly is in issue from a legal perspective, while not contesting certain aspects of the case which can obviously be proven. This strategy will always win over the respect and approval of a trial judge, who otherwise might become frustrated from hearing a lengthy case that has no focus or no real theme for the defence. In this case, Mr. Stastny elected a judge alone trial in the Ontario Court of Justice without seeking a preliminary inquiry. He admitted almost the entire Crown case and focused on one issue only, which was the reliability of the identification of the defendant. As a result, the trial took place over two hours rather than a full day, and only one witness testified. Ultimately, the experienced trial judge who heard the matter agreed that the identification evidence tendered by the Crown in the case was not reliable enough to sustain a conviction, and acquitted Mr. Stastny’s client.
R. v. A.A. (2016) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. The client was a passenger in a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle was shot at in a drive-by shooting at Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East. The client and the driver were shot multiple times and severely wounded. The police arrived on scene, and the client attempted to discard of a fully loaded firearm by throwing it on the road. The firearm was located and seized by the police. The firearm, however, was actually the property of the driver of the vehicle, who eventually gave a full confession to the police indicating the item was his, and that he had purchased it several weeks prior for protection, and had been storing it in his car. However, that did not in law excuse the client from taking possession of the firearm for the purpose of attempting to hide it from the police. In fact, the case was overwhelmingly strong and there was no question the client was identified as being the person who threw the firearm onto the road. Multiple witnesses positively identified the client as having been the person to do so. However one subtle but crucial issue that Mr. Stastny raised was whether the client had knowledge the firearm was loaded. Given the firearm was the driver’s, it was not a foregone conclusion that he ought to know the firearm was loaded. Further, convictions for possession of a loaded firearm, rather than possession firearm simpliciter, often vary in severity significantly. Given the importance of this issue, Mr. Stastny focused the case on the lack of evidence that his client knew the gun was loaded. The Crown sought a guilty plea to possession of a loaded firearm several times, both in the Ontario Court of Justice, and before the trial in the Superior Court, and Mr. Stastny refused the offer consistently. Even the client, however, considered taking the offer, simply out of exhaustion from the lengthy nature of the court proceedings and the desire to end the matter and move on. However, Mr. Stastny assured the client that running a focused trial on the issue of whether the Crown could prove the client knew the gun was loaded, or not, would accrue to his benefit and save him from a much longer jail sentence. Ultimately, a trial was held in the Superior Court of Justice, where Mr. Stastny admitted almost the entire Crown case, and only one witness testified for the Crown. In the end, the trial judge agreed completely with Mr. Stastny’s argument that there was no evidence that the client knew the firearm was loaded and completely rejected the position of the Crown. With the factual findings made by the trial judge that the firearm was only possessed by Mr. Stastny’s client for a brief moment, and absent the conviction for possession of a loaded firearm, Mr. Stastny was able to justify a sentence to the trial judge that was relatively low for such an offence, and significantly lower than what the Crown sought, resulting in the client’s release from custody immediately.
Read more: Trial DecisionRead more: Sentencing Decision
R. v. A.A. (2016) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client found himself in a precarious situation. The client was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was filled with illegal drugs. The police had cause to investigate the vehicle, observed drugs in plain view, and both the client and the driver were arrested. The driver was described as being an “ambulatory illegal drugstore”, being in possession of commercial quantities of cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone. Mr. Stastny’s client, for his part, had possession of some marijuana, but also happened to be sitting directly beside a sizeable quantity of crack cocaine, which he was charged with jointly possessing with the driver. A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the Ontario Court of Justice. Although Mr. Stastny was successful in getting the marijuana related charges withdrawn at the preliminary inquiry, the client was committed for trial before a judge and jury on the charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, namely the crack cocaine sitting right beside the client and the driver of the vehicle. Not wishing to expose his client to the perils of trial, Mr. Stastny applied for an order of Certiorari, quashing the lower court’s decision. Mr. Stastny’s argument was uniquely straightforward. Although it may be tempting to assume a person who is sitting within an arms reach of a commercial quantity of drugs, and clearly knows they are there, is in possession of those drugs, the law of possession requires more. Being an occupant of a vehicle, knowing there are quantities of illegal drugs within the vehicle, is not, in itself, criminal. There must be some evidence that the occupant exercises control over the drugs, and the most obvious evidence of control would rest with the driver, who controls what comes in and out of the vehicle. In a very detailed and thoughtful decision, the Superior Court Judge reviewing the matter agreed with all of Mr. Stastny’s arguments, and quashed the committal for trial.
R. v. D.D. (2016) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Arguably the most important role of a defence lawyer is to provide sound advice to the client on whether they should proceed to trial or pursue some form of plea bargain. In some cases, there are significant risks to clients who forego a properly negotiated plea bargain and proceed to trial and are convicted. In many cases a sentence imposed after trial can be much more punitive then on a negotiated guilty plea. In this case, Mr. Stastny determined that the client had no viable defence and focused efforts on obtaining the lowest possible sentence for the client. Mr. Stastny advised the client to enter a guilty plea to one count as part of a plea bargain rather than going to trial on a total of six charges. The next challenge, however, was dealing with the seriousness of the offence as part of the sentencing. As a general proposition, persons convicted of trafficking cocaine, even in small amounts, are at serious risk of going to jail. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in the frequently cited case of R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927, has laid down a range of sentence for trafficking cocaine between 6 months up to 2 years jail. Further, for offences committed after November 2012, the Federal government, through amendments to the Criminal Code, abolished the sentencing judge’s option to allow a sentence for this kind of offence to be served in the community. Mr. Stastny’s client thus presented an unusual challenge. On the one hand, obtaining the client an arguably lenient weekend sentence, which would allow her to continue to work, would have been a very reasonable result. On the other hand, the client’s case presented an opportunity to push the boundaries even further and to make the argument that Woolcock did not stand for the proposition that every person who traffics cocaine must go to jail, no matter what their background was. Here, the client was a refugee claimant who had suffered significant hardships while growing up. She committed the offences at a very young age, prior to her having status to work in Canada, had no criminal record, and had done extraordinarily well in turning her life around while on bail. With the combination of these mitigating factors, and the important guilty plea before trial, Mr. Stastny was able to seize upon some recent case-law from the British Columbia Court of Appeal which approved of probationary sentences in certain “exceptional” cases. Ultimately the sentencing judge agreed with Mr. Stastny that this client’s case was exceptional and imposed a sentence of 2 years probation. This decision is now a very important precedent for other accused persons facing similar charges, as it is the first reported decision in Ontario approving of a probationary sentence for a non-addict convicted of trafficking cocaine since the conditional sentence option was made unavailable in 2012.
R. v. A.S.A. (2015) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Indictable charges usually provide the accused with the option to have a preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice, followed by a trial in the Superior Court of Justice either with a judge alone or a judge and jury. Unfortunately many criminal lawyers routinely opt to have a preliminary inquiry prior to trial without weighing the true benefits, if any, of this procedure for their client. A preliminary inquiry can be useful in some cases, however the downside is that the preliminary inquiry provides the Crown with more time to perfect its case between the time of the preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice and the eventual trial in the Superior Court of Justice. In this case, Mr. Stastny waived the preliminary inquiry for his client and proceeded directly to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. By doing so, he saved the client the risk of being put on trial in the Superior Court of Justice for 6 very serious charges. Instead, the Crown chose to only proceed on two charges which it felt its case was overwhelming on, and failed to foresee a subtle defence argument that arose on the evidence. In an unusual technical argument, Mr. Stastny convinced the trial judge that his client could not be found guilty of trafficking in a substance held out as cocaine, as there was no evidence the client ever represented the substance as being cocaine, as opposed to any other powdered narcotic. The end result was that Mr. Stastny’s client had 5 of 6 charges dismissed against him and was found guilty of only one charge, that being possession of proceeds of crime.
R. v. S.M. (2015) (Ontario Court of Justice)
The client retained Mr. Stastny to defend him on a serious allegation of domestic assault in Brampton. Mr. Stastny–aware of the Brampton Courthouse’s reputation as being one of the busiest in the province–was careful to always assert his client’s right to trial within a reasonable time under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the date the trial was set, Mr. Stastny made it clear he was ready to conduct the case much earlier than the date provided by the Court, which was about 7 months away. Then, on the scheduled date for trial, the client’s case could not be reached due to congestion in the trial court. Again, Mr. Stastny asserted his client’s right to trial within a reasonable time, and asked the Court for the soonest possible 2nd trial date. The 2nd trial date provided however was another 8 months away, which created a total delay of approximately 15 months. As a result, Mr. Stastny brought a motion to have the charges stayed for unreasonable delay, and argued the client had been prejudiced significantly from the delay, and that furthermore, 15 months was such an unacceptably long period of time to get to trial in the Provincial Court that prejudice should be inferred. Ultimately the application judge agreed with all of Mr. Stastny’s arguments, and the client’s charges were stayed for unreasonable delay.
R. v. R.B. (2014) (Ontario Court of Justice)
A search warrant was executed at the client’s home in Toronto. The Toronto Police Service rammed the front door of the home in, and found the client along with a third party sitting in the living room. There was drugs and money in plain view. A further search of the client uncovered a large quantity of percocet pills and money. In the basement of the home a large quantity of crystal meth was discovered. As a result the client was charged with possession of crystal meth for the purpose of trafficking, possession of percocet for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime. Mr. Stastny advised the client to elect to have his trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and to not pursue a preliminary inquiry. On the trial date Mr. Stastny brought an application to have the search of the client’s home invalidated, on the basis that the search warrant for the dwelling was deficient. Mr. Stastny argued that the grounds for the warrant were lacking in all of the crucial areas, and that further, the warrant contained a number of misleading statements that aggravated the police conduct. The trial judge agreed, and in a lengthy ruling, excluded all the evidence obtained from the search, and acquitted the client of all charges.
R. v. K.L. (2014) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
The bail hearing is arguably one of the most important procedural steps for an accused person facing criminal charges. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutionally protects the right to reasonable bail for all accused persons. However that does not mean that all accused persons are released on bail. Quite the opposite, where the prosecutor seeks detention of the accused on one of the three enumerated grounds, a hearing must take place to decide the bail issue, and not infrequently, bail can be denied. The most common reason for the detention of the accused without bail relates to concerns about the risk the accused person poses to the public and whether the accused will continue to commit offences if released (typically referred to as the “secondary ground” for detention). Relating to the secondary ground are concerns the Court may have regarding the criminal record of the accused or the plan of supervision proposed to ensure the accused does not engage in criminal activity if released. Beyond the fact that an accused person can be detained in custody prior to being found guilty, a detention order can put the accused person at a serious disadvantage by complicating the ability of the accused to properly defend himself. When incarcerated pending trial, one has limited ability to fund a defence (i.e. pay a lawyer), as well as difficulties in communicating with counsel and meeting with counsel to prepare a defence in an organized methodic fashion. Perhaps most importantly, the clock runs against the detained accused, as every day in jail spent is effectively time served towards a charge that the accused is presumed innocent of. It is not at all uncommon to have persons spend years in jail and walk out free after being acquitted at trial. On the other hand, many persons will plead guilty out of desperation when denied bail as they are concerned that they will spend longer in custody waiting for trial then if they plead guilty at the first opportunity. In this case, Mr. Stastny’s client was facing extremely serious charges, possession of over a kilogram of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, as well as similar offences relating to cocaine, marijuana, and possession of proceeds of crime. The client had a bail hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice with a different lawyer (who was very experienced), but was denied bail based on his criminal record, the seriousness and depth of drug trafficking allegations he was facing, and concerns over the plan of supervision that was proposed. The client’s family came to Mr. Stastny and sought a review of the detention order in the Superior Court. Mr. Stastny took the matter on, and drafted a very comprehensive attack on the detention order, while at the same time, improved the plan of supervision. A hearing was held with a very experienced judge of the Superior Court of Justice, whom agreed with Mr. Stastny’s arguments on the errors in law that were made in the lower court, and released Mr. Stastny’s client on bail.
R. v. T.A. (2014) (Ontario Court of Justice)
After the execution of a search warrant at a residential address in Toronto, the client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. At the time of his arrest and during his processing at the police division, the client provided confessions to police that the drugs seized from the residence were his. The confessions were provided as a result of an agreement reached with the police, whereby the police promised not to charge the client’s pregnant wife with the same drug offences if the client agreed to take ownership of the drugs seized from the family home. A preliminary inquiry was held at the Ontario Court of Justice over 2 days. At the preliminary inquiry, Mr. Stastny argued that the client’s confessions to police should not be admitted into evidence, as they were involuntary, prompted by the inducement held out by the police that the client’s pregnant wife would not be charged if the client took responsibility for the drugs. Without the confessions in evidence, Mr. Stastny argued that the remaining circumstantial evidence was insufficient to commit the client to stand trial on. In a lengthy written decision, the preliminary inquiry judge agreed with all of Mr. Stastny’s arguments, and discharged the client at the end of the proceedings.
R v. R.K. (2014)(Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with a number of firearm possession related offences as a result of an encounter with the police in the Beaches area of Toronto. 5 young males were loitering in a parking lot in the Beaches area, when a firearm was passed between two of the males. A bystander witnessed the firearm being passed between the two males, and called the police. The police arrived on scene shortly thereafter, and detained all 5 of the males who were in the parking lot. Mr. Stastny’s client’s car was searched under “exigent circumstances”, and a firearm was recovered in the back seat of the vehicle, the butt end sticking out from under a floor mat. A video obtained from the Toronto Police cruiser that had arrived on scene, showed Mr. Stastny’s client getting out from the back seat of the vehicle where the firearm was ultimately located, just as the police were pulling up to the parking lot. However, Mr. Stastny argued that the civilian witness’ description of the two males passing the firearm did not match his client’s description. In addition, Mr. Stastny argued there was ample opportunity for any of the other males to stash the firearm in the vehicle without his client’s knowledge. Ultimately, the trial judge agreed that there were conflicting inferential scenarios on the facts, and as a result, the Crown had not proven that the client or the co-accused had knowledge and control of the firearm. Accordingly, Mr. Stastny’s client and the co-accused were found not guilty.
R v. N.A. (2014)(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with robbery with a firearm. The client had attended a birthday party at his cousin’s apartment. There was a large number of people in attendance. Ultimately a dispute broke out between the client and another male at the party. As a result, the male left the party, and decided to go home. Waiting for his taxi cab outside the building, it was alleged that Mr. Stastny’s client approached the male with a number of other young men who were at the party, and robbed him at gunpoint. The next day, the client ran into the same male in the area, and the male pulled a knife on the client and stabbed him, leaving the client with life threatening injuries. Ultimately the client was charged with robbery with a firearm, and the other male was charged with aggravated assault. The robbery with firearm case proceeded to trial in the Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Stastny focused on the numerous discrepancies in the identification evidence, noting that the complainant changed his description of the robber numerous times, and was overly confident about his identification of other persons alleged to be involved the robbery which proved to be erroneous identifications. Ultimately, the trial judge agreed that the identification evidence was dangerously unreliable and could not support a conviction, and Mr. Stastny’s client was acquitted of all charges.
R v. K.T. (2014)(Ontario Court of Justice)
After an encounter with the police in a back alley off of Queen Street West in Toronto, the client was searched and the police discovered a large quantity of marijuana and cash. As a result, the client was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime The police testified that they chose to detain the client because his actions of loitering in a back alley seemed suspicious to them, and that they chose to search him for officer safety reasons particularly due to the client’s “baggy” clothing. Mr. Stastny argued that the police had no grounds to detain his client, and at best, they were operating on a hunch that he might be up to “no good”, which did not provide sufficient legal grounds to detain. Further, Mr. Stastny argued that even if the detention was lawful, the search was completely unjustifiable. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Stastny’s arguments, and found the detention and search of the client to have been unlawful. The evidence seized from the client was then excluded from the trial, and the client was found not guilty.
R. v. J.D. (2013) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client, a lady with no criminal history, was charged with attempting to obstruct justice, a very serious indictable offence. The background to the incident was that the boyfriend of Mr. Stastny’s client was facing criminal charges of assault. The charges were initiated by Mr. Stastny’s client’s ex-husband. Mr. Stastny’s client felt the charges were false and initiated out of spite by her ex-husband. Eventually Mr. Stastny’s client, in a heated debate with her ex-husband about issues over access to her son, offered a financial benefit to her ex-husband if he agreed to “drop the case” against her boyfriend. The ex-husband reported the matter to the police, and Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with attempting to obstruct justice. A trial on the matter occurred in Halton Region, and Mr. Stastny essentially admitted the entire Crown case including all evidence against his client. Mr. Stastny argued that the evidence did not support the charge before the Court, as the client’s request for her ex-husband to “drop the case” was motivated by ignorance of the criminal process and a mistake or confusion between criminal proceedings and family proceedings. After a full day of trial and further extensive submissions in writing, the trial judge ultimately agreed with Mr. Stastny and found he had a reasonable doubt as to whether the client’s actions were motivated by an intent to obstruct justice rather than a mistaken understanding of the criminal process. The client was accordingly found not guilty, much to her relief.
R. v. C.B. (2013) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged in a home invasion robbery at gunpoint. The charges carried with them a mandatory minimum penalty of 5 years imprisonment if the Crown proved the firearms used in the robbery were genuine rather than imitation firearms. The evidence on the actual home invasion was overwhelming, and as such, Mr. Stastny made a strategic decision to focus on one issue, which was whether the firearms were real or not. In a skillful cross examination, Mr. Stastny discredited the complainant and established she had lied to the court on a number of important points, including the fact that drugs were actively being sold out of her house at the time the home invasion occurred. As a result, Mr. Stastny argued she was not a credible witness and her evidence on whether the firearms were real or not was highly unreliable. Ultimately the trial judge agreed and found that the Crown had not proven that the firearms in question were real. On sentencing, Mr. Stastny then successfully argued that his client’s mitigating personal circumstances, more limited role in the home invasion, and conduct at the trial that admitted he was involved in the robbery, similar to a guilty plea, should lead to a sentence well below the Crown’s recommendation of 6 years in jail. Mr. Stastny argued a sentence closer to the 2 year range would be appropriate. The trial judge agreed, and the client received one of the lowest reported sentences for a home invasion robbery, a total of 2.5 years jail plus probation.
Read more: Trial DecisionRead more: Sentencing Decision
R. v. K.S. (2012) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with breaching his bail conditions, particularly a condition that he not operate a motor vehicle. The client had been charged with two impaired driving incidents, and after the second incident, was released on a bail that required him not to operate a motor vehicle. The client was not legally trained, and became very confused about his lawful ability to drive, as a result of a number of factors: Firstly, when the client was charged with the second impaired driving incident, the arresting officer told him that he would only be subject to a 90 day driving suspension. Secondly, after the 90 days had passed, the Ministry of Transportation sent the client a temporary license in the mail, which to the client, suggested he was allowed to drive. The client even called the Ministry of Transportation to confirm he was permitted to drive, and the Ministry told the client that as far as they were concerned he was allowed to drive. The client began to operate his motor vehicle again, and eventually was involved in a very significant motor vehicle collision. When the police arrived on scene, it came to light that the client was actually restricted from driving as a result of his bail conditions. A trial on the matter was heard, and Mr. Stastny essentially admitted the entire Crown case, and then called his client as a witness to testify about his confusion with respect to why he believed he was legally permitted to drive. Mr. Stastny argued that his client had begun driving his vehicle again as a result of a mistake of fact, when the Ministry of Transportation sent the client his driver license in the mail. Mr. Stastny argued that the client lacked the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) to commit the offence, that is, that he had a mistaken understanding of his bail conditions and there was no guilty intent when the client chose to begin driving again. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Stastny’s argument, and found the client not guilty.
R. v. V.O. (2011) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with assaulting and threatening death on two police officers. The client had missed a court date and there was a warrant issued for the client’s arrest as a result. The police came to the client’s house looking for him, and saw him walking in front of the house. When the client made eye contact with the police, he ran and attempted to take refuge in the home from the police officers. In the front doorway of the home, one of the police officer’s was struck in the face by the client. The pursuit continued into the house, where the client was ultimately arrested, and taken into custody. A number of threats were made at the police officers during the arrest. Mr. Stastny argued that the police had no warrant to arrest the client in his dwelling, and as a result, they were unjustified in pursuing him into his home. Accordingly, Mr. Stastny further argued that the assault on the police officer in the doorway of the home was justified as a defence of property, that is, for the purpose of repelling the police from entering the home. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Stastny’s arguments, and acquitted the client on all charges.
R. v. G.A (2011) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with possession of a firearm with ammunition readily available, when after a search warrant was executed by the Toronto Police Service, a firearm was located in what was alleged to be the client’s bedroom, under the bed, along with a bag of ammunition. The room in question had documents found inside it that were in the client’s name, and pictures on the wall of the client. There were also some documents found in the room that were in the client’s brother’s name. The matter had a preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice, and then moved forward to a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. What came out in evidence was that the Toronto Police actually had documents in their possession, which suggested the client may have resided at a different address then where the firearm was found. Following this, the client’s brother was called as a witness, and testified that the room was a shared room that both he and the client had used during their childhood, but that neither of them regularly inhabited the room anymore. Further, the client’s brother testified that he would occasionally use the room to sleep in when he was visiting with the family and did not wish to return home the same evening, including just prior to when the search warrant was executed. In a detailed written decision, the trial judge found that the Crown had not even come close to proving that Mr. Stastny’s client had knowledge of the firearm, and found him not guilty of all charges.
R. v. M.C. (2011) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with a “carjacking”, essentially a robbery of a motor vehicle at gunpoint. The evidence against the client was purported to be very strong: a person closely matching the description of the client robbed the victim of her motor vehicle at gunpoint. Within a week of the incident, the client was driving the stolen motor vehicle and pulled over during a R.I.D.E. stopcheck; he tried to evade the stopcheck, resulting in a high speed chase with police. The client was arrested after the high speed chase, and the weapon used to commit the robbery was located in the stolen motor vehicle. The Crown argued, among other things, that Mr. Stastny’s client’s possession of the stolen vehicle, with the weapon used to commit the robbery in the vehicle, and the client’s similar physical description to that of robber, in totality established the guilt of the client. Mr. Stastny argued that the identification evidence was inconclusive, as the victim failed to pick the client out of the photo lineup presented to her after the robbery occurred. Further, Mr. Stastny argued that although the client’s action at the R.I.D.E. stop were odd, there were other reasons in evidence to suggest why he found himself in possession of the stolen car, and why he chose to flee the police. Ultimately Mr. Stastny argued the Crown had failed to prove the client was the perpetrator of the robbery. The trial judge agreed, and acquitted Mr. Stastny’s client of the robbery.
R. v. D.P (2011) (Ontario Court of Justice)
Mr. Stastny’s client was charged with a serious domestic assault allegation, where the complainant alleged a number of significant injuries were caused by the client. Domestic assault cases can be difficult to defend, as they typically involve the word of the complainant against the word of the client. As such, effective and thorough preparation are key to ensuring a proper defence for the client when dealing with domestic assault charges. In this case, Mr. Stastny spent considerable time reviewing text messages, voice messages, and Facebook messages sent from the complainant to the client in and around the time of the alleged assaults. After reviewing these materials along with other relevant evidence, it became clear to Mr. Stastny that the complainant was fabricating the allegations against the client and had lied to the police on various material points. Ultimately the matter was tried in Oshawa, Ontario, by a very experienced trial judge. After a devastating cross-examination of the complainant by Mr. Stastny where the complainants credibility was reduced to zero, the trial judge ruled overwhelmingly in favour of the defence and the client was acquitted.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that any correspondence with Andrew Stastny Professional Corporation is for informational purposes only. You will not be considered a client of Andrew Stastny Professional Corporation unless a retainer agreement has been executed with Andrew Stastny Professional Corporation. Further, the content of this website is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. No action with regards to your legal matter should be taken until you have first obtained full legal advice from a lawyer properly retained to act on your behalf.