R. v. B.A.
A short and difficult marriage ended abruptly with a complaint to the police by the soon to be ex-wife. The wife brought videos of conduct and pictures of injuries to the police making allegations that could have been devastating to B.A.’s career. The wife was seeking extraordinary remedies in family court. The case ended during cross-examination when the wife was confronted with evidence she did not know the defence had in its file. The wife was exposed as incredible. This evidence damaged the wife’s credibility to the point where a successful prosecution was untenable.
R. v. D.B.
Three separate incidents of domestic violence were reported. The relationship by all accounts was toxic and immature. A motion for directed verdict was successful at the end of the Crown Attorney’s case, and only one charge remained. The evidence called by Mr. Weisberg left the judge with a reasonable doubt and D.B. was found not guilty
R. v. A.B.
A young man was accused of punching his girlfriend in the face three times in the middle of the street in front of bystanders. The complainant, a university student, also alleged a vicious beating months earlier that involved choking, kicking, punching and threatening. The young man and Mr. Weisberg immediately gathered evidence that would later help establish his innocence at trial. The complainant and her family were eager to proceed to trial.
Mr. Weisberg methodically and repeatedly exposed lies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. The complainant was also confronted with extrinsic evidence that was completely inconsistent with her testimony. She was merely a jilted lover on a revenge mission. In the middle of cross-examination, the Crown Attorney asked Mr. Weisberg to stop asking questions so he could invite an acquittal.
R. v. R.J.
The accused was a young professional dating an exotic dancer. The client and his girlfriend became involved in a heated argument outside of a nightclub. The complainant accused J.R. of pushing her to the ground. She made accusations that back at their house he choked and slapped her.
Mr. Weisberg successfully argued that the matter ought to be stayed for unreasonable delay. R.J. still has no criminal record. He faced other charges of fail to comply which were later withdrawn.
R. v. B.P.
The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law wife and causing her bodily harm by giving her a black eye. Mr. Weisberg successfully argued that there was an unreasonable delay. The charges were dismissed.
R. v. J.H.
J.H. was arrested for assault cause bodily harm. The complainant was J.H.’s long-term girlfriend. The complainant had serious injuries to her face. The complainant’s older brother did not approve of his sister’s relationship with J.H. for religious reasons. Mr. Weisberg satisfied the trial judge that the older brother committed the assault on his younger sister and not J.H. The client was found not guilty.
R. v. R.C.
The accused allegedly pushed his wife to the ground while she was holding their baby. During the trial, a very dysfunctional relationship was exposed. The woman’s version of events to the police was discredited, and R.C. was found not guilty.
R. v. L.R.
This case began because of a bitter separation. Our client got in a serious fight in a parking lot with her ex-partner. The fight was over the family mini-van. Our client was accused of scratching her ex-partner’s face with her fingernails. The husband had consistent injuries to his face. Our client was found not guilty based on self-defense.
R. v. H.S.
The accused’s wife was a doctor. She accused him of repeated domestic violence spanning months. Midway through the trial, the Crown withdrew the charges against H.S. because Mr. Weisberg demonstrated significant inconsistencies in the evidence.
R. v. H.O.
A young couple had been going through a difficult period in their relationship. H.O’s girlfriend accused him of viciously beating her during an argument. At trial, the complainant was exposed as a liar and H.O. was found not guilty.
R. v. F.A.
A young professional and his new wife were struggling emotionally with each other. They had terrible verbal confrontations with each other. The husband was determined to make the marriage work and would not take hints from his wife that they were on a path to divorce. Eventually, the wife set him up with a series of false allegations and he was forced out of the matrimonial home. At trial, the wife’s story was exposed as a fabrication. The Crown discontinued the prosecution midway through the cross-examination.
R. v. M.B.
An argument occurred in front of a young child. The police arrived on the scene to diffuse the argument and charged the accused with assault. Adam Weisberg put a comprehensive strategy into place. A detailed presentation was taken to the Crown Attorney which convinced the state to withdraw the charges in their entirety.
R. v. M.H.
In a heated argument involving allegations of infidelity, the accused assaulted their partner by pushing and scratching. The case was complicated because the accused admitted the assault and left injuries. Adam Weisberg personally met with the Crown Attorney and eventually a peace bond was entered into, and the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. J.B.
The accused was captured on a 911 tape uttering threats at his girlfriend. The accused gave an inculpatory statement admitting to an assault and uttering threats. The complainant had injuries and also gave a statement under oath confirming the incident. The accused wanted to take responsibility for his actions. The charge of assault was withdrawn, and the accused pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats. Mr. Weisberg put together a comprehensive sentencing plan and obtained an absolute discharge for the accused person.
R. v. A.G.
A young professional student had a heated argument with his girlfriend. He admitted to elbowing her and restraining her. After a comprehensive plan was put in place and difficulties with the prosecutor’s case were demonstrated the charges were withdrawn. No criminal record and no peace bond.
R. v. V.J.
An alcohol-fueled argument took place in front of a baby. The police were called, and injuries to the complainant noted. A motion to get the couple back together was immediately successfully brought to change release conditions. Eventually, all charges were withdrawn after a detailed plan was put in place to satisfy the Crown that no future issues would arise.
R. v. M.P.
Both parties sustained injuries in a heated argument. A successful motion was immediately brought to remove the “no contact” condition of the accused’s release conditions. A plan involving extensive counselling was put into place, and the couple’s charges were eventually arranged to be withdrawn. No peace bond and no criminal record.
R. v. E.K.
A young university student was charged with forcible confinement and assault against his live-in girlfriend. After a detailed plan was put into and executed, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges and allow the accused to enter into a common-law peace bond where he was allowed contact with his girlfriend with her written revocable consent.
R. v. C.J.
A woman was charged with dangerous driving, assault with a weapon and failure to remain at the scene of an accident. It was alleged that she ran over her ex-boyfriend in a minivan. On the day of trial, the accused’s charges were withdrawn for a six-month common law peace bond.
R. v. J.S.
Arranged a plan of comprehensive counselling for a couple that wished to reconcile. I brought a contested bail variation to have my client move back in with the complainant that accused him of an assault. The Crown Attorney was persuaded to withdraw the charges outright.
R. v. A.P.
Client charged with several counts of assault. All charges were withdrawn after the client entered into a common-law peace bond. No criminal record.
R. v. M.D.
Client charged with choking and throwing wife to the ground. A plan was put in place, and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges for a peace bond.
R. v. C.P.
Client charged with domestic assault allegations. Mr. Weisberg brought an application to change the undertaking to reunite the family on the eve of Christmas. All charges were withdrawn in the new year.
R. v. R.B.
University student charged with domestic assault and mischief. Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after counselling and volunteer work completed. Client entered into a peace bond.
R. v. P.M.
A young professional was about to be married and was suddenly charged by fiancé with domestic allegations. Charges were withdrawn in their entirety on the second appearance.
R. v. Dr.H.
A doctor was charged with assaulting his wife with a weapon. A plan of action was put into place, and after lengthy discussions with the Crown Attorney, it was agreed that the charge should be withdrawn.
R. v. Dr.A.
A professor was charged with assaulting his wife. She received six stitches from his actions. After a bail review and counselling, the accused received an absolute discharge.
Representing the Complainant:
R. v. X.X.
The charges were withdrawn after a detailed letter was written advocating for the complainant’s desire to have the charges dismissed. No peace bond and no criminal record.
R. v. A.B.
Adam Weisberg spoke to the Crown Attorney and assisted counsel in obtaining a peace bond for his client.
R. v. Y.M.
A personal meeting was arranged with the Crown Attorney. The complainant deeply regretted calling the police. Acting as complainant’s counsel, Mr. Weisberg convinced the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges. No peace bond and no criminal record.
R. v. C.Y.
Mr. Weisberg assisted the accused’s counsel by providing full input that enabled counsel to arrange to have the charges withdrawn against his client at the first appearance.
R. v. A.B.
Assisted in getting complainant’s spouse back in the family home by writing a letter to the Crown Attorney and arranging for joint counselling.
R. v. J.D.
Accused caused a cut to complainant’s arm by throwing scissors at her. The complainant was confident that this was an unintentional act. With counsel for the accused, we advocated getting the charge withdrawn. The couple did not choose to resume their relationship.
R. v. D.D.
Assisted in helping the complainant reunite her family for Christmas by writing a letter on her behalf to the Crown. Charges against husband were withdrawn in the new year.
R. v. S.K.
The complainant came home intoxicated. Her common-law husband was charged with a domestic assault as a result of allegations made in the heat of the moment while severely intoxicated. Mr. Weisberg was able to assist the complainant in getting the charges withdrawn while protecting her from legal jeopardy.