416.738.7839
carlos@rippell-law.com
 
 
Cases

*Names have been omitted and replaced with initials in order to protect client privacy.  Newspaper articles and the full text of reported decisions in the public domain are available upon request.

 

R. v. Q.O. (2013, Superior Court of Justice, Brampton)

Client was found not guilty of sexual assault after a trial by jury. 

R. v. A.A. (2012, Superior Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client was found not guilty of sexual assault after a trial by jury.

R. v. A.H  (2011, Superior Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client was found not criminally responsible in second degree murder case.

R. v. K.S. (2011, Superior Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client found not guilty of possessing cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

R. v. H.K. (2011, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto)

Crown agrees to withdraw charges of possessing marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.

R. v. A.H. (2011, Ontairo Court of Justice, Woodstock)

Crown agrees to withdraw charges of possessing cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

R. v. S.N. (2011, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client found not guilty of criminal harassment and threatening death.

R. v. M.D. (2011, Superior Court of Justice, London)

Client receives a rare conditional sentence in internet luring case.

R. v. J.O. (2011, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client's charges of possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking charges are withdrawn.

R. v. J.R. (2010, Superior Ccourt of Justice, Toronto)

Client found not guilty of attempted murder, aggrivated assault and threatening death.

R. v. A.Z. (2010, Ontario Court of Justice, Milton)

Client's charge of threatening death with respect to his girlfriend is withdrawn.

R. v. K.M. (2010, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client's criminal harassment charges withdrawn.

R. v. P.E. (2010, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto)

Client's charges of robbery with a firearm withdrawn during preliminary heairng.

R. v. K.W. (2005, S.C.J.):  Mr. Rippell brought an Application on behalf of the accused in this matter for the exclusion of a cell phone, marijuana, a loaded firearm and a digital scale from evidence on the basis that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed.  The court held that the seizure of the cell phone was a warrantless seizure that infringed section 8 of the Charter, and that the seizure constituted a serious intrusion on the accused's personal autonomy and privacy.  The police's conduct was found to be high handed and an abuse of power.  The court held that the evidence sought to be excluded was found because of a stop, detention and initial questioning, which occurred during Charter breaches.  The court recognized that the evidence sought to be excluded included a loaded gun, which was very serious, but held that admission of the evidence in the circumstances would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  The cell phone, marijuana, firearm, bullets and digital scale were all, therefore, excluded from evidence.       

R. v. C.T.K.N. (2004, S.C.J.):  The accused in this matter was charged with assaulting a 90 year old woman in a nursing home.  Mr. Rippell brought an Application on her behalf for a stay of her charges due to an infringement of her Charter right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time.  A 21 month delay in bringing the accused to trial was found to be unreasonable considering the complexity of the matter, and the charges were stayed.

R. v. J.M.T. (2004, S.C.J.):  The accused in this matter was charged with importing drugs.  Mr. Rippell brought an Application on behalf of the accused for a stay of the charges against her on the basis of unreasonable delay in bringing her to trial.  The Crown was held to have been responsible for 27 1/2 months of a 39 month delay.  The court held that the accused suffered real and presumed prejudice because of the unreasonable delay, and the charges against her were stayed.

R. v. D.W.M. (2004, S.C.J.):  The accused in this case was convicted of sexual assault and incest with a child under the age of 14.  His conviction was then overturned by the Court of Appeal, and a new trial was ordered.  The total amount of time that it took to bring the accused to trial amounted to 32 1/2 months, and Mr. Rippell brought an Application on behalf of the accused for a stay of the proceedings against him due to unreasonable delay in bringing him to trial.  The court held that the accused had been prejudiced by the delay in that he had ended up serving more prison time than he would have served if he had lost his appeal.  The court held that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonabel period of time and his right to be presumed innocient until convicted had been infringed, and accordingly stayed the criminal proceedings against him.    

R. v. A.M.S. (2006, O.C.J.):  The accuseds in this case were two brothers who were charged with being in possession of a gun and drugs which were found in their residence.  During one of the brothers' interrogation at the police station, police officers told him that unless someone admitted to owning the gun, his entire family, including his mother and sisters, would be arrested for possession of the gun, and would be taken to jail.  The accused then gave a video-taped statement admitting knowledge of the gun.  The issue was whether or not the statement had been voluntary.  The court expressed great doubt as to whether a statement which had been made in response to such threats could be voluntary, and excluded the statement from evidence.  Without the statement, the Crown had no other evidence to prove that the accused had knowledge of the gun, and the case was dismissed.

 

Request a Consultation
Enter the text in the image
*Please do not send any sensitive information about your case over the internet.

Available 24 hours a day. If you are, or someone you know is under arrest, please do not hesitate to call 416.738.7839
 
Servicing the following regions
The purpose of this website is to provide general information about Carlos F. Rippell's criminal law firm. The content provided on this website is NOT legal advice, and accessing this website or contacting Carlos F. Rippell by email does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
   
© 2014 Carlos F. Rippell   /   Request a Consultation    /    Home  .  Profile  .  Practice Areas  .  Cases  .  FAQs  .  Fees  .  Contact Designed By toronto web design company