Source: http://freudmanlaw.com/recent-successes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 21:12:20+00:00

Document:
R. v. A.M.- Client facing numerous charges including sexual assault and human trafficking; Crown was seeking lengthy term of imprisonment upon conviction. Several media outlets reported on the incident, vilifying client despite the presumption of innocence. Daniel hired a private investigator to expose serious inconsistencies in complainant's story and ultimately was able to get Crown to unconditionally drop all charges. Daniel then contacted media outlets to request they rectify their reports to reflect client's innocence.
R. v. S.A.- Client charged with 8 counts of Assault and 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence. Following extensive review of video surveillance and a Judicial Pre-trial, Daniel was able to negotiate a resolution wherein all charges against client were dropped.
R. v. M.K.- Following trial, Daniel obtained an acquittal for client on charges of Uttering Death Threats.
R. v. B.B.- Daniel was successful in obtaining a directed verdict on all charges, meaning immediately following the closing of the Crown's case, client was acquitted of Assault with a Weapon, Uttering Threats, and Breach of Peace Bond.
R. v. C.A.- Domestic assault and mischief charges withdrawn as Daniel was able to convince Crown that proceeding with the charges was not in the "interests of justice". There were multiple inconsistencies in complainant's account of events, and complainant retracted allegations and wished to reconcile.
R. v. M.M.- Daniel was successful in having all charges (Assault with a Weapon, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Weapons Dangerous) dropped against client. The Crown was originally seeking 90 days jail, but after a pre-trial resolution meeting, Daniel was able to convince the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction should the matter proceed to trial.
R. v. A.R.- Client was facing charges of Obstruct Justice, Witness Intimidation, and Threatening Death. Daniel got the first two charges withdrawn prior to trial, and succeeded in getting the client acquitted on the third/final charge upon the completion of trial.
R. v. S.T.- Client charged with Intimidation of a Justice System Participant, Utter Death Threats and Assault with a Weapon. During the Preliminary Hearing, Daniel caught Crown witnesses off-guard with video evidence that exonerated client and contradicted witnesses' testimony. Following police (tech crimes) verification of the video, all charges against client were dropped.
R. v. D.T.- Client facing aggravated assault and attempted murder charges, with prior record for several assaults and a breach of court order. Notwithstanding, after a heavily contested full day hearing, Daniel was able to get Client released on bail. This allowed Client to return home, supervised by his parents, and attend mental health counseling, rather than being jailed without such support systems.
R. v. P.K.- Client was initially released on bail for gun and drug charges. While on bail, Client was arrested by police for breaching his conditions by being outside after curfew, and carrying drugs and a loaded firearm. Both the Federal and Provincial Crown conducted the bail hearing, adamantly seeking Client’s detention given the fact he was now facing additional Drug and Firearm charges, along with charges for Failure to Comply (breach of bail). Nevertheless, Daniel proved successful over the two Crowns, getting Client released on bail under the supervision of family members.
R. v. C.S.- Following a contested bail hearing, Daniel was successful in having client released on non-residential surety bail, despite client facing charges for fraud and laundering proceeds of crime in the sum of $5.6 million.
R. v. A.R.- Client facing several armed robbery and firearms charges. After a heavily contested bail hearing, Daniel was successful in having client released to a single surety, no-deposit.
R. v. E.C.- Client charged with several counts of Domestic Assault and Utter Threats. After a contested bail review in the Superior Court of Justice, Daniel was able to have client released on bail on the grounds that there had been a material change in his circumstances since the initial bail hearing.
R. v. T.G.- After a two-day contested bail hearing, Daniel was successful in having client released on bail despite client having two separate outstanding charges, both of which were very serious.
R. v. A.W.- Daniel successfully negotiated a consent release with the Crown for a single-surety no-deposit bail, despite client having multiple related outstanding charges and convictions for breaches of court orders.
R. v. M.K.- After a two-day trial, client was acquitted of Failure to Comply (Breach of Probation) on account of Daniel raising a reasonable doubt as to client's intention to breach probation.
R. v. J.E.- Client charged with Failure to Comply (Breach of Probation). Daniel was able to have charges dropped on the day of trial on account of Crown's inability to prove the identity of the accused.
R. v. T.G.- Client charged with breaching his bail for associating with Co-Accused. Crown presented video surveillance of client sitting next to Co-Accused on bus, and a police officer testified that he witnessed client talking to Co-Accused. Nevertheless, after a contested trial, and rigorous cross-examination of the police officer, Daniel raised reasonable doubt as to whether client was "associating" with Co-Accused, and thus client was found Not Guilty.
R. v. T.T.- Client charged with Driving While Impaired by Drug. Crown called several civilian and police witnesses, as well as a toxicologist who testified that traces of three different drugs were found in client's urine sample. Nevertheless, Daniel was still able to secure a complete acquittal for client by raising a reasonable doubt as to whether such drugs impaired client's ability to operate a motor vehicle.
R. v. R.L.- Following Daniel's cross-examination of one police witness and one civilian witness, Crown invited Judge to dismiss the Dangerous Driving charges against client, on account of Daniel eliciting evidence from witnesses that suggested Client's driving was not "dangerous" and officer's account of events was not credible. Judge acceded to Crown's request, and dismissed all charges against Client.
R. v. D.E.- After a two-day trial, client was acquitted of both Over 80 and Impaired Driving charges. Daniel raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the client's ability to drive was impaired, and whether the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by the Criminal Code of Canada. Daniel also successfully argued that the client's Charter rights under Sections 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) had been violated and thus the Breath Certificates (evidencing client's breath readings of 170) were excluded from evidence.
R. v. A.G.- Careless driving charges were withdrawn on trial date after Daniel spoke with Crown and raised officer attendance and disclosure issues.
R. v. O.G.- After pre-trial discussions with Crown, Daniel was successful in negotiating an Over 80 charge to the lesser (non-criminal) offence of Careless Driving. This prevented client from receiving a minimum $1,000 fine, year-long driving prohibition, and permanent criminal record.
R. v. J.N.- Client found Not Guilty of Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, as Daniel was able to show during trial that the police officer lacked the requisite grounds to make the roadside breath demand, and thus client was under no obligation to comply.
R. v. J.N.- Officer pulled over vehicle in which client was a passenger. Officer claimed he smelled marijuana; driver conceded and produced a small quantity of marijuana from his pocket. Officer arrested both driver and client for the marijuana, and while searching client incident to arrest, located 90 grams of cocaine in client's waistband area. At trial (Charter hearing), Daniel established that officer had no grounds to arrest client for marijuana possession, and thus search incident thereto was unlawful. Judge further accepted Daniel's submissions that the cocaine must be excluded from evidence. Accordingly, client was acquitted of all charges. Client was able to return to his family / young daughter, and preserve his job and clean record, instead of spending years in jail as sought by Crown.
R. v. M.K.- Client facing drug possession and trafficking charges after being pulled over by police and quantity of oxycodone discovered in his car. After setting a judicial pre-trial, Daniel was able to get all charges against client dropped on account of the serious Charter violations perpetrated by police in the stopping and searching client's vehicle without proper grounds to do so.
R. v. L.S.- After a preliminary inquiry and day-long hearing on Charter issues, all of client's charges (i.e. possession- marijuana, trafficking- oxycodone, failure to comply- recognizance) were withdrawn as Daniel was able to establish that the arresting officer breached several of client's constitutional rights.
R. v. M.R.- Possession charges dropped on trial date after Daniel had filed a Charter Application attacking the search warrant which lead to the search and seizure of the drugs.
R. v. A.C. and P.W.- Daniel was representing co-accused, both charged with possession of marijuana. Daniel was able to have the charges against both clients dropped on the first court appearance.
R. v. T.G.- Client charged with Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana) in a school. After several resolution meetings with the Crown, Daniel was able to negotiate a deal whereby the charges would be withdrawn upon client's performance of community service.
R. v. A.R.- Crown seeking 8-10 years jail for Armed Robbery and Firearm charges. After a hard fought seven-day jury trial, Daniel successfully led the jurors to reach a finding of Not Guilty on all charges. Client avoided nearly a decade in prison, and instead was able to return to his family and job, with no criminal record.
R. v. T.G.- At the conclusion of a two-day trial, client was acquitted of robbery charges, as Daniel successfully impugned the credibility of officer testimony and reliability of video surveillance evidence.
R. v. S.W.- Client charged with two counts of Break & Enter, and Crown was initially seeking a conditional sentence (i.e. house arrest + criminal conviction). Client's primary concern was to avoid a criminal record as she had no prior convictions and was in the process of applying to universities. Daniel successfully negotiated a deal with the Crown whereby all charges were withdrawn upon the client making a $50 charitable donation.
R. v. T.G.- Client charged with robbery; Crown indicated they would seek jail time upon conviction. After a two-day trial, client was found Not Guilty, as Daniel was able to raise reasonable doubt as to both the client's whereabouts during the relevant time, as well as the accuracy of witness identification evidence.
R. v. J.M.- Client on trial for $600,000 corporate fraud charges, and roughly 1,000 pages of disclosure (i.e. banking records and financial statements) were produced by Crown. Daniel spent the entire first day of trial rigorously cross-examining Crown’s primary witness, exposing several critical inconsistencies and ulterior motives. When Daniel returned for the second day of trial, the Crown conceded that based on the previous day’s evidence, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges against client were dropped.
R. v. F.J. and M.J.- Daniel was retained by two co-accused in relation to a theft of approximately $300 from a retail store. After advising clients to do some work upfront, Daniel was able to have all charges against both client dropped on the first court date.
R. v. M.R.- Client charged with Mischief Over $5,000 for allegedly vandalizing leased property. Client adamantly denied allegations; complainant (property owner) was incredulous and had ulterior motives for making allegations. During trial, Daniel cross-examined complainant so vigorously that she had a panic attack. Judge declared a mistrial, and on next trial date, Crown stayed all charges against client.
R. v. A.M.- On the client's first court appearance. Daniel was able to convince the Crown to drop the Theft Under $5,000 charge as the value of the item allegedly stolen was so negligible.
R. v. E.D.- Client charged with Theft Under $5,000 after allegedly shoplifting several items from a retail store. Daniel spoke with Crown and Diversion office and arranged for the charges to be withdrawn upon client writing a letter of apology.
R. v. F.E.- Client’s previous lawyer was seeking to plead the client guilty to firearms charges in exchange for 3 years jail time in a federal penitentiary. Dissatisfied with this, the client decided to terminate the previous lawyer and retain Daniel instead. Upon being retained, Daniel thoroughly reviewed case disclosure and noticed several critical issues with the search warrant that lead to the seizure of the firearms. Daniel prepared and delivered a voluminous Application to have the firearms ruled inadmissible as evidence at trial based on the deficient Information to Obtain the search warrant. Shortly after receipt, the Crown conceded the Application and withdrew all firearms charges. Shortly thereafter, Daniel successfully got client’s Mischief charges withdrawn unconditionally, despite Crown originally seeking 30 days custody. No jail time, no criminal record, no finding of guilt of any sort.
R. v. M.R.- Crown originally seeking jail time on possession of prohibited weapon (stun gun) charges. Daniel was successful in getting charges dropped after it became clear that Crown could not prove the stun gun constituted a "weapon" as defined by the Criminal Code.
R. v. M.G.- Client charged with seven firearms offenses, matter advanced to Superior Court and Crown was seeking three years jail time. Daniel was successful in having all charges stayed after contesting the validity of the search warrant that lead to search and seizure of the guns. Specifically, Daniel argued that the information put forward by the police officer(s) to obtain the warrant didn't disclose the requisite 'reasonable and probable grounds' necessary for issuance.
R. v. J.M.- Client charged with two counts of Weapons Dangerous, for being in possession of a samurai sword and replica firearm for a purpose dangerous to the public. Daniel was able to have charges dropped upon client's entry into a Peace Bond.
J.L. v. Amex Bank of Canada- Client and his company were being sued by Plaintiff for an unpaid corporate credit card debt which client supposedly personally guaranteed. Plaintiff was intending on moving for summary judgment, but Daniel raised serious issues concerning misrepresentations by agents of the Plaintiff. This led Plaintiff's counsel to have doubts as to the strength of their case, and enabled Daniel to negotiate a very favourable settlement. Specifically, Plaintiff was suing for over $240,000 plus legal costs and interest, but Daniel was able to finalize settlement in the amount of only $3,500 inclusive of costs and interest.
R.F. v. Paul Previdsa Ltd.- Client suing contractor for deficient and/or incomplete renovations work. After a four-day trial, Daniel won judgment for client in the amount of $12,336.28, plus legal costs and interest.
P.M. Inc. v. Orion Construction & Management Ltd.- Dispute arose between construction company and contractors. Construction company sued contractors for poor workmanship; contractors counter-claimed (counter-sued) construction company for unpaid work. Contractors retained Daniel to represent them at trial. After trial, Daniel was successful in having the construction company's case (claiming over $20,000) entirely dismissed, and his client awarded the full amount claimed for unpaid work (over $17,500).
J.J. v. Andrea J-L.- Due to a direct-deposit error, client mistakenly continued to make bi-monthly mortgage payments to a private lender for over one year after the mortgage had already been fully discharged. Despite several requests by client, the private lender refused to refund the overpayments, which totalled over $7,500. Daniel sent the private lender a strongly-worded Demand Letter, and within three weeks, the private lender repaid client the full amount; a quick and cost-effective resolution for the client.
A.S.T.S. v. Edward D.- Plaintiff suing Client (arborist) for $20,000 claiming damage was done to his property during tree removal. Client counter-sued Plaintiff for $2,400, being balance of unpaid contract. After a two day trial, Daniel was able to secure a judgment in favour of Client for $1,500 and no money was payable to the Plaintiff.
E.B. v. Rudi C. & Alex C.- Daniel was representing Plaintiff, a financial advisor who sold her client-base to Defendants. Defendants did not pay the full purchase price as they alleged Plaintiff breached a non-solicitation clause within the Purchase & Sale Agreement. Accordingly, Defendants (represented by their in-house legal counsel) counter-sued Plaintiff for $25,000 in damages. Following a two-day trial, Daniel was able to discredit both Defendants and their witness, and establish that Plaintiff never breached the Agreement. The judge therefore dismissed the Defendants’ claim entirely, and ruled in favour of the Plaintiff for the full outstanding purchase price amount (roughly $21,000), plus legal costs and interest.
D.B. et. al. v. City of Toronto et. al.- Client sustained serious injuries from a slip & fall incident. After years of hard work and constant dedication to the file, Daniel secured a settlement of $220,000 in favour of the client. Daniel’s ongoing efforts and strategic negotiations resulted in the client being fairly compensated for her physical and emotional distress.
Tara B. et. al. v. N.C.- Client facing $1 million personal injury lawsuit for alleged negligent tire installation, leading to motor vehicle collision. During questioning, Client maintained that he performed all services in a diligent and professional manner. Meanwhile, Daniel raised questions as to the true nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries. Following Examinations for Discovery, Daniel was successful in having lawsuit against Client dropped, with legal costs awarded to Client. .
R.D. v. Metro Ontario Inc.- Daniel was approached by client who suffered a slip & fall accident on the premises of a grocery store. Daniel spent significant time gathering medical documentation and other pertinent evidence in support of client's potential claim. Following extensive negotiations with the store's insurance adjusters, Daniel was able to secure a settlement for the client in the amount of $45,000.
S.G. v. Toronto Police Services, et. al.- In an action against the Toronto Police Services Board and other private citizens for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution, Daniel successfully defeated a Motion brought by one of the Defendants to strike the client's Statement of Claim. As Daniel won the Motion, his client was able to proceed with the case, and was also awarded $1,500 in costs.
M.W. v. State Farm Insurance- Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving without insurance. Two parties in the opposing vehicle sued client, each claiming $1,000,000 in damages for personal injury. Client was of very modest means and could not afford to pay out significant amounts of money. Daniel was able to reach a settlement that allowed client to pay less than 1% of the amount claimed, and over a period of several years so as to avoid financial hardship.
R.F. v. Bradley C.- Defendant (tenant) moved out of rental unit after eviction date without giving notice. Defendant's counsel argued Client (plaintiff/landlord) gave notice by delivering eviction notice. Daniel successfully argued that, in not moving out on eviction date, Defendant effectively nullified the notice. Thus, as proper notice was not otherwise given, Defendant was found in breach of the lease agreement and liable to Client for full damages claimed.
P.Y. v. Real Mortgage Associates Inc.- Client was a real estate agent facing a $250,000 lawsuit in relation to mortgage services provided which weren't directly within client's work mandate. E&O Insurance initially refused to cover and defend client, alleging that client was acting outside the scope of his work; however, after much correspondence and drafting of Motion materials, Daniel was able to compel the E&O Insurance to fully defend client (at no cost), and even reimburse client for all legal fees previously incurred on the matter.
E.D. v. Alan L.- Client suing his next door neighbour for emotional distress and other damages suffered as a result of neighbour's incessant nuisance and trespass. After a hard-fought trial, Daniel was successful in obtaining judgment against the Defendant (neighbour) for just over $7,000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.