R. v. S.A.
A young man was travelling through Canada backpacking and staying at hostels. He met a young woman from his hostel. They decided to engage in some domination and role-playing. The pair rented a hotel room. At the end of the night the young woman would not stop with the domination games despite his protests. The client removed her from the room with force. The young woman called 911 and claimed she was raped. She later gave a statement to the police claiming violence occurred during the sexual encounter and at the preliminary hearing claimed she was choked. The young man always staunchly maintained his innocence. He testified at his trial. The young man was invulnerable to cross-examination. A hallmark of truth-telling. The jury found him not guilty of all counts (choking, sexual assault, utter threats, and assaults).
R. v. D.D.
Historical and current allegations of sexual assault were made against our client. The complainant was a family friend to our client. Some of the allegations occurred during a time period when the complainant was younger than the age of consent. The client always maintained his innocence. We secured work records that were able to show that some of the historical allegations were unlikely to have been possible to occur. The client testified, and a jury found the gentleman not guilty of all charges.
R. v. S.S.
Serious allegations of sexual assault were made that involved choking and degrading behaviour. A private investigator was hired to obtain security video footage. Computer forensics were done on the cell phone involved with the complainant. After setting aside preliminary hearing dates, Mr. Weisberg was able to demonstrate his client’s innocence and the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. S.S.
The firm’s client was a professional massage therapist at a spa. The complainant accused the client of inappropriately touching her during the massage. The client always maintained his innocence and was adamant that he did not inappropriately touch the complainant. The client was found not guilty as the trial judge found that there was likely a misunderstanding between the client and the complainant.
R. v. I.J.
During cross-examination, the complainant’s testimony involving a gang sexual assault was challenged to the point where her credibility was extremely damaged. The prosecutor invited an acquittal after the complainant’s evidence was complete. The client always maintained the interaction was consensual.
R. v. B.T.
The complainant was cross-examined for two days at the preliminary hearing. The complainant claimed that the accused had anal sex with her without her consent. After the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge of sexual assault.
R. v. J.K.
The complainant accused our client of attacking him while he was intoxicated. Text messages and emails were used to establish the complainant’s credibility was suspect. After intense negotiations, the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. F.W.
The complainant was discredited at the preliminary hearing as problems with the credibility of her version of events were highlighted. Midway through the trial, the sexual assault charges were withdrawn.
R. v. S.M.
S.M. managed a retail store in a popular Toronto area mall. He was accused of forcing vaginal and oral sex on a teenage employee. S.M. always maintained his innocence. The matter dragged through the court system at a slow pace. At trial, Mr. Weisberg launched an unreasonable delay application that was successful. S.M. still has no criminal record.
R. v. M.T.
The complainant made serious allegations of a gang rape that included the use of a weapon during a brutal sexual assault. At the preliminary hearing, Mr. Weisberg dismantled the complainant’s version of events. Part way through the complainant’s evidence at trial, Mr. Weisberg convinced the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges. The client has always maintained his innocence and insisted these allegations were untrue.