*The following represents only a sample of cases that were scheduled for trial. These do not include favourable resolutions that were negotiated with the Crown before trial.
Criminal Code Driving Offences
R. v. C.T. [2008] [Section 11(b)]
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.
R. v. J.V. [2009] [Section 11(b)]
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.
R. v. N.S. [2010] [Section 8]
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level and possession of cocaine. The client was strip searched at the police station. The trial judge found that because the door was left ajar and the client was left completely naked during the search his rights to privacy were violated. A stay of proceedings ensued.
R. v. F.B. [2018]
Client was charged with operating his motorcycle with Excess Blood Alcohol. The judge found a breach of the defendant’s section 10(b) rights to counsel. The charge was dismissed.
R. v. A.S. [2020]
The Client was charged with Impaired Operation and Excess Blood Alcohol. The trial judge found a number of breaches of the Client’s Charter rights and dismissed the Excess Blood Alcohol charge. She was left with a reasonable doubt about whether or not the client was Impaired. The Client was acquitted of that charge.
R. v. J.H. [2021]
The client was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80. The trial commenced in 2020 at evidence was heard over the course of two days. On the final date scheduled for trial in 2021 the Crown lost jurisdiction over the defendant due to the lost information. The charges were ultimately stayed by the Crown. The client avoided a criminal record.
R. v. P.S. [Section 10(b)]
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client could not speak fluent English. Counsel argued his right to counsel in his own language (Tamil) had been violated. The trial judge agreed. The breath readings were excluded leaving the Crown with no further evidence.
R. v. L.A.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. Counsel brought an application arguing there was a significant delay in bringing the roadside screening device to the scene. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge on the trial date. The Client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.
R. v. R. D.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He hit a parked car in his neighborhood and fled the scene. He was passed out on his lawn when the police arrived on scene. Counsel argued that the client was subjected to an illegal strip search at the police station. The judge agreed that the Client’s rights were breached and that the strip search was unwarranted. A stay of proceedings ensued.
R. v. T.S.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He was involved in an accident and his breath readings were more than three times the legal limit. The charge was withdrawn on the trial date by the Crown.
R. v. G.P.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Crown failed to provide disclosure of maintenance records of the breath machine to counsel in a timely fashion. The case had to be postponed and an early trial date could not be secured. As a result, the charges were withdrawn by the Crown on the trial date. The Client plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He kept his driver’s license and avoided getting a criminal record.
R. v. D.M.
The Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. Counsel insisted that the Crown disclose all the relevant evidence in the case. The Crown was unable to provide all the relevant evidence because it had been lost. The charge was withdrawn on a trial date due to lost evidence.
R. v. T.B.
The Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. The charge was dismissed following counsel’s successful cross-examination of the arresting officer on the date of trial. After discussions with the Crown, the Client plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his license.
R. v. A.L.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. The charge was withdrawn on a trial date. The Client plead guilty to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his license.
R. v. D. B.
Client was charged with Impaired and Over 80 milligrams Operation. Both charges were withdrawn after the first trial date because of an anticipated motion to stay the proceedings for delay. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.
R. v. S.G.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. The trial commenced and the Crown called his arresting officer. After counsel’s successful cross-examination of the arresting officer Crown agreed to withdraw the charge. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving Under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record.
R. v. L.H.
Client was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80 milligrams Operation. Her breath readings were more than twice the legal limit. On the trial date the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges due to difficulties in proving the case against her. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She avoided getting a criminal record.
R. v. A.Y.
Client was charged with Excess Blood Alcohol and Obstruction of Justice. The trial judge found he was held too long overnight in the cells at the police station and should have been released earlier. He found the over-holding was a serious infringement of his liberty. While he did not stay the Excess Blood alcohol charge he did impose the minimum fine and granted a discharge on the obstruction of justice charge.
R v. S.G.
The client was charged with impaired by drug, namely marihuana. Immediately prior to the trial date the Crown agreed to a plea to careless driving pursuant the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record.
R v. H.G.
The client was charged with Refusal to provide a Breath sample. The first trial date was adjourned. The Crown ultimately agreed to a plea to Careless Driving due to concerns about a violation of clients right to a speedy trial. He avoided getting a criminal record.
R v. M.S.
The client was charged with Excess Blood Alcohol concentration. His matter did not proceed to trial on the scheduled trial date and was adjourned to a later date. The Crown offered a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided a criminal record.
R v. S. J.
The client was charged with Impaired Operation. On his first trial date, the court could not accommodate his trial, and the matter was adjourned. Counsel filed an application under section 11(b) of the Charter alleging a violation of his rights because of delay. On the next date, the Crown admitted to a breach of right to a speedy trial, and the criminal charges dismissed.
R v D.T.
The client was charged with Impaired Operation. Counsel filed an application under section 11(b) to have the charges stayed for delay. On the trial date, the Crown conceded the application was meritorious, and the charges were dismissed.
R v. C. R.
The client was charged with Refuse Breath sample. Counsel filed an application under section 7 of the Charter alleging Police used excessive force during arrest, and breach of his right to a speedy trial. The Crown withdrew the charges on the application date.
Domestic Assault Cases
R V. M.G.
Client was charged with Assault Bodily Harm. On the second day of trial after a successful cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown withdrew the charge against the Client in exchange for the Client entering a Peace Bond.
R v A. S.
Client was charged with Assault x 3. On the first day of trial after cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown withdrew all charges against the client.
R V. A.B.
Client was charged with Criminal Harassment and Threatening death. The Crown brought an application to have the client declared a dangerous offender. The judge rejected the Crown’s request to declare him a dangerous offender. Instead, he received a long-term offender designation.
Drug Offence Cases
R.v. T.V.
Client was charged along with a co-defendant with Producing Marihuana and other drug-related offences. After a month-long trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, the client was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. O.A.
Client and his co-defendants were charged with trafficking in a large amount of cocaine. Following a trial in the Superior Court of Justice the charges were stayed because the police violated the client’s Charter right to be free unreasonable search and seizure due to the warrantless search of his van.
R v. S.M.
Client was charged with possession of heroin. Following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice the charges were dismissed.
Other Offences
R v C.L.
Client was charged with Sexual Assault. At the Superior Court of Justice the Judge found his right to a speedy trial was infringed. A stay of proceedings followed.
R v. A. J.
Client was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm. At the Superior Court of Justice the Judge found his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated following the search of his vehicle. A stay of proceedings followed.
R. V. C.L.
Client was charged with a violent purse snatching in Markham. On arrest the client had an altercation with a police services dog that left him with serious injuries to his face. Following a Charter application, on sentencing the trial judge found that situation warranted a mitigated sentence and the client avoided a lengthy jail sentence and was placed on probation.
R. v. R. C.
Client was charged with a Sexual Assault and Assault with a weapon. The Crown’s case was vigorously challenged at trial in the Superior Court of Justice and the Client was acquitted of all charges.
R v. L. S.
Client was charged with Sexual Assault. The Crown’s case was vigorously challenged at trial in the Superior Court of Justice and the Client was acquitted of the charge.
R v. T. G.
Client was charged with Aggravated assault that was upgraded to Manslaughter. Following the preliminary hearing the client was committed to stand trial in the Superior Court. The Crown withdrew the charge in Superior Court.
R v. Q.H.
Client was charged with Kidnapping and possession of a firearm, assault, stemming from an alleged debt connected to an underground gambling den. Following the preliminary hearing the client was committed to stand trial in the Superior Court. The Crown withdrew the charge in Superior Court.
Michelle was outstanding from start to finish. Her strategic approach in handling my case helped me achieve my desired outcome. During my consultation with Michelle she was very thorough in explaining the process, potential outcomes and really put me at ease by managing expectations. She was also very transparent with the fees – helping me plan accordingly. With my charge withdrawn, she has been instrumental in helping me put this issue behind me. Highly recommend Ms. Johal.
Steven
I can not be more grateful and satisfied by the honesty and integrity which was shown to me by Michelle Johal. She was never quick to judge and always focused on supporting myself on winning my case. I would highly recommend hiring Michelle Johal as your Lawyer. Thank You!
F R
Michelle Johal is a fantastic lawyer. She is passionate, charismatic and most importantly dedicated to her clients and her cases. You will be in good hands with Michelle and you will feel how much she cares about your case. I highly recommend her!
Maya Shukairy
I retained Michelle Johal and she has taken care of everything from beginning to end. She was able to answer all my questions and make sure I was able to get the best possible outcome! She has been of great help to me and is highly recommended to anyone.
P Y
Michelle Johal is best lawyer.She take care of everything about your case.She dismissed all my charges of drink and drive.And also you can pay her fee in installment.Her nature is very good .She explained everything in perfect manner .I am very lucky to have this lawyer.
Amrinder Singh
Previous
Next
Practice Areas
Michelle Johal Practices Exclusively In The Area Of Criminal Law.
Discuss your case in confidence
It is located a short distance from the A. Grenville and William Davis Courthouse located at 7755 Hurontario in Brampton. It is located across from the Tim Horton’s on County Court Blvd, and is a large commercial building with ample parking. We can be located on the 6th floor at County Court Law Chambers.
Fill out an online inquiry form. Someone will respond to your inquiry within 24 hours.