June 12, 2007: DUI Win!

Judgment was received in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen v. S.S.P. Our client, Mr. P. had been charged with the DUI offence of drive “over 80”. A police officer testified that he had actually seen the client drinking from a bottle of whiskey in his vehicle. Notwithstanding this evidence, Lorne Sabsay was able to have the breath samples excluded. The arresting officer had failed to afford our client a reasonable opportunity to speak with counsel notwithstanding the presence of numerous pay telephones in the area of the arrest. Mr. P. was acquitted of the offence.

September 25, 2007: Drug Importing Win!

Judgment received in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen v. I.A.. Our client had admitted to importing 64 kilos of cathinone (a scheduled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, found in the plant Catha Edulis Forsk), also known as Khat. Cohen Sabsay LLP represented I.A. in a lengthy hearing, which included evidence of the relatively benign nature of this substance and its near exclusive use by immigrants from East Africa. When Judgment was released, the presiding judge, His Honour, Mr. Justice E. Allan, granted our client an absolute discharge. In his judgment His Honour noted the prosecution’s failure to prove that Khat presented sufficient harm to warrant even a criminal conviction in this case.

January 28, 2008: Tax Litigation Win!

Judgment released in the matter of PJ Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen, in the Tax Court of Canada. Our client had appealed tax reassessments arising from audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency. As a result of the representation of Cohen Sabsay LLP, the appeal of PJ Inc. was allowed and the client was saved approximately $500,000.00 CAD in taxes. Business expenses which had been disallowed by the CRA were ordered to be reinstated by the Court.
 

June 12, 2007

Lorne Sabsay appeared today before Justice Knazen for judgment in the case of our client, S.P.  Mr. P. had been charged with driving with more than 80 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml. of blood (i.e. “over the legal limit”) as a result of his being stopped by a police officer who testified he saw our client actually drinking from a whiskey bottle while driving.  The officer made a demand for an approved screening device sample.  There was no such device available at the time so the officer had our client sit by the side of the road, handcuffed, while he waited for the device.  The device had to be brought by another officer and took 17 minutes to arrive.  The officer did not at any point, during the wait for the screening device, give our client his rights to counsel, even though this was a busy downtown intersection with plenty of pay telephones around.  His Honour found that this was a violation of our client’s right to counsel under the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and excluded the breath sample readings subsequently obtained.  In the result the client was acquitted of the “over 80” drinking and driving offence.  His driving licence and his clean record were both saved.

January 24, 2007

Lorne Sabsay was able to retrieve a substantial amount of cash, onbehalf of our client K.S., from the Peel Regional Police Service.  When the client was arrested on certain outstanding warrants, police seized a large sum of cash as well as his eyeglasses, saying they were required in an unrelated murder investigation.  The Crown refused to return the items and we brought an application under s. 490 of the Criminal Code, and s. 24(1) of the Charter, to have the property returned.  After our submissions to the Honourable Mr. Justice Wake, the Crown changed its position.  Both the eyeglasses and cash were ordered returned to the client on January 19th and the Order was complied with in full today.

January 9, 2007

Lorne Sabsay appeared today before Mr. Justice S. Clarke in Brampton Ontario Court of Justice to receive judgment in the case of our client, K. S.  The client was charged with dangerous driving and flight from police.  He was acquitted of all charges.  The main issue in the case was identification.   Two police officers wrote in their notebooks that the driver of the vehicle in question was of a “heavy build” with a “round face”.  We led evidence to show that our client was of a thin build, with a narrow face both before and after the date of the driving in question.  Moreover, we were able to show that the police did not conduct proper pre-trial identification procedures such as a fair photo lineup.  Instead, the police simply obtained a photo of the registered owner of the vehicle (who was in fact our client) and came to the conclusion that the photo depicted the driver on the date of the admittedly dangerous driving.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Crown could prove that our client was, indeed, the registered owner of the subject motor vehicle, he was found “not guilty” of all charges because of the failure of the Crown to properly prove his identification as the driver.