The accused., N.S., was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime and failure to comply with a probation officer. N.S., was the driver of a motor vehicle that was stopped by the Ontario provincial police (opp) for a speeding violation. Following the traffic stop, the officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana while speaking to the driver of the vehicle. After asking the occupants to step out of the vehicle the officer called for back-up and the vehicle was searched. During the course of the motor vehicle search, the officers found five kilograms of marijuana, twenty-eight grams of powder cocaine, $1,570.00 of cash and a digital scale. Mr. Pyzer represented N.S., and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn prior to trial. As such, N.S., does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.
The accused, O., was charged with possession of marijuana and failure to comply with a recognizance. He was found to be in an area where he had previously been arrested in contravention of his bail. When the police approached him he was seen to throw a plastic bag containing marijuana to the ground. Mr. Kostman was successful in having the charges withdrawn after a successful charter of rights application for “unreasonable delay”.
The accused, C.V., was charged with possession of a controlled substance contrary to section 4(3) of the controlled drugs and substances act. The allegations against C.V., were that in may 2006,
The accused attended at a tim horton’s parking lot and parked his vehicle beside an unmarked police van. He was observed to pull a small bag out of his pocket containing powder cocaine. C.V., entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine. Mr. Pyzer successfully argued that in the circumstances C.V., should receive a conditional discharge. Accordingly, C.V., has no criminal record, and may accurately state that he has never been convicted of a criminal offence. This was an excellent result, since most individuals who are found guilty of a cocaine-related offence get a criminal conviction.
The accused, R., was charged with possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. R., had escaped from a half-way house and had created a crack lab in his apartment. The police became aware of where R., was staying and made a forced entry into his apartment. R., climbed down the side of the building by moving from one apartment balcony to balcony. When the police caught up with R., he was attempting to hide on a first floor balcony. Mr. Kostman successfully argued that the search of the apartment was illegal and that there was a breach of R’s right to counsel upon arrest. All of the evidence, including a substantial amount of crack cocaine and loaded firearms was excluded from the trial. The charges were stayed.
The accused, B., was charged with possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) for the purpose of trafficking”. It was alleged that he had attempted to abandon a cache of cocaine upon the arrival of the police. Two police officers testified they observed B., in possession of the cocaine. Mr. Kostman represented N., at trial, and successfully argued that the police were mistaken in their observations. N., was acquitted.
The accused, G., was charged with possession of narcotic and assault police. The charges were stayed after successful charter of rights application challenging the propriety of G.,’s arrest and the search of the motor vehicle.
The accused, S., was charged with possession for the purpose (marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine). Mr. Kostman was successful in having all charges withdrawn on the basis that S., (the passenger/girlfriend of the driver of motor vehicle where the drugs were found) had no knowledge or control of the drugs.
The accused, S., was driving a motor vehicle in the entertainment district. The police alleged that there was the odour of freshly burned cannabis emanating from the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately two ounces of marijuana packaged in two gram packages. The police also found a ceremonial sword in a knapsack on the back seat of the vehicle. Approximately $6,000.00 in american and canadian currency was found in the vehicle. Mr. Kostman was successful in having all the charges withdrawn after S., completed 50 hours of community service. The money that was seized as proceeds of crime was returned.
The accused, L., a young person, was found in possession of approximately two ounces of marijuana which he admitted was for the purposes of sale. He was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (marijuana). Mr. Kostman acted for L., The charge was withdrawn after L., completed counseling for drug issues.
The accused M.H., was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The allegations against M.H., were that he engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction for the purchase of crack cocaine with an undercover officer of the Toronto police service. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against M.H., withdrawn prior to trial. As such, M.H., has no criminal record in relation to these charges nor was there any finding of guilt made against him.
The accused, N.C., was charged with possession of heroin possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking x2, possession of cocaine and possession of marihuana. The Toronto police service received information in regards to selling of narcotics at a specific apartment in Toronto. Officers then applied for a search warrant for the apartment. The police attended at the address entered the apartment and located large quantities of heroin, cocaine and marijuana as well as drug trafficking paraphernalia. N.C., was arrested just outside of the apartment and her personal belongings including identification and clothing were found inside the apartment. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against N.C., withdrawn prior to trial. As such, N.C., has no criminal record in relation to these charges nor was there any finding of guilt made against her.
The accused, E.W., was charged with possession of crack cocaine and breach of a recognizance. The allegations against E.W., were that he was observed by police to reach into his pocket left jacket pocket with is left hand and remove a plastic baggy containing crack cocaine and throw it to the ground. At trial, Mr. Pyzer brought an application to exclude the drugs arguing that The accused’s rights under the charter were breached as a result of an arbitrary detention and illegal search. The accused was acquitted on both charges before the court.
The accused, D.G., was charged with possession of marijuana and breach of an undertaking. The allegations against D.G., were that he was observed to be in the company of two female friends. Members of the peel regional police subsequently detained, investigated and searched The accused and allegedly found 3.7 grams of marihuana on his person. At trial, Mr. Pyzer brought an application to exclude the drugs arguing that The accused’s rights under the charter were breached as a result of an arbitrary detention and illegal search. Prior to the trial commencing, the assistant crown attorney agreed to withdraw all charges against The accused.
The accused, D.S., was charged with possession of a controlled substance contrary to section 4(3) of the controlled drugs and substances act and possession of stolen property. The allegations against D.S., were that three of his friends were observed by police to be in possession of a stolen vehicle. Once spotted by the police, the individuals fled the vehicle and were chased by police. During the chase, the officers stated that they observed The accused pull a bag of marihuana out of his pocket and drop it on the ground behind him. On the morning of trial, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against D.S., withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
The accused. M.P., was charged with possession of marijuana. Mr. Pyzer acted for him and was successful in having the charge against M.P., stayed at the request of the federal prosecution service of canada. M.P., did not have to perform community service, make a charitable donation or obtain any counseling.
The accused, M.B., was charged with the offences of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. The allegations against M.B., were that he was situated in Toronto’s kensington market when he was observed to conduct a hand-to-hand transaction with another individual involving a quantity of marihuana. Mr. Pyzer represented M.B., and was successful in having all of the charges against M.B., withdrawn at the request of the public prosecution service of canada prior to setting a trial date.
K.S., was charged with possession of hashish. The allegations against K.S., were that he was a passenger in a vehicle that was in a motor vehicle incident. The police attended at the scene of the accident and observed the motor vehicle laying on its roof and the vehicle demolished. The two occupants of the motor vehicle were investigated by members of the Ontario provincial police and found to be in possession of a small package that contained 3.5g of hashish. Both accused allegedly confessed to the investigating officer that the hashish belonged to them. Mr. Pyzer represented K.S., and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. As such, K.S., does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.
M.D., was charged with possession of crack cocaine and obstruct police. The allegations against M.D., were that as a result of an undercover police investigation he was located in a suspected crack house. Following a transaction for crack cocaine with an undercover police officer, police barged into a residence and chased the suspected drug dealer upstairs. M.D., is alleged to have blocked the officers upon their entrance into the residence by body checking them. Upon his arrest he was found to be in possession of a quantity of crack cocaine. Mr. Pyzer represented M.D., and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. As such, M.D., does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.
S.A. was charged with Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking and simple Possession of Marijuana pursuant to sections 5(4) and 4(5) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as Possession of Proceeds of Crime contrary to section 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The allegations against S.A. were that he was observed littering while exiting the Malvern Town Centre. Police approached the accused who was entering his motor vehicle and the officers purported to have detected a strong odour of marijuana emanating from S.A. The accused was arrested and then searched by members of the Toronto Police Service. Approximately 9 grams of marijuana was found on S.A.’s person as well as a digital scale and a large quantity of cash. Mr. Pyzer represented S.A. and was successful in having all three charges against him withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office. Mr. Pyzer was able to achieve this result by conducting a thorough review of the disclosure materials and convincing the Assistant Crown Attorney that there were serious violations of the accused’s Charter rights to be free from arbitrary detention and illegal search and seizure. As a result of Mr. Pyzer’s efforts, S.A. was able to resolve his matter without any criminal record or finding of guilt. Five months after having the charges withdrawn, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having S.A.’s fingerprints and mughsots destroyed.
The accused, J.M. was charged with one count of possession of a heroin for the purposes of trafficking, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of proceeds of a crime and carrying a concealed weapon. J.M. had been under police investigation following two confidential source tips identifying the accused. It was alleged that while the police were conducting surveillance of the accused, they observed hand-to-hand transactions between J.M. and two separate individuals. The police proceeded to search the accused and his car, allegedly finding a quantity of heroin in separate bags, brass knuckles and a quantity of money on the accused. Jonathan Pyzer represented the J.M. and was successful at having all the charges against him stayed and his trial dates vacated. Mr. Pyzer was able to exploit issues with the police investigation of J.M. and delays with the Crown providing evidence against J.M. to his advantage. As a result he was able to persuade the Crown not to pursue the charges against J.M.
The accused, S.A. was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking as well as a simple possession of marijuana. S.A. was observed by members the Toronto Police Service to be littering while exiting a shopping mall. The accused was then observed entering into a motor vehicle in a shopping mall parking lot. The officers approached the vehicle and asked the accused to exit the vehicle and pick up his litter. As the accused exited, the officers claimed they could smell freshly burnt marijuana emanating from S.A’s vehicle. The accused was placed under arrest for the possession of marijuana and searched, incident to his arrest. The police reported to have found a quantity of marijuana in a clear plastic baggy in S.A.’s pocket. Officers reported to have discovered two empty clear bags in the same pocket along with $390.00 in cash. Jonathan Pyzer represented S.A. and was successful in having all the charges against the him withdrawn at the request of the public prosecution service of Canada. Mr. Pyzer was able to obtain a withdrawal of the charges by convincing the Crown’s office that his client’s rights pursuant to section 8, 9 and 10b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated and that the evidence would likely be excluded at trial as a result of these breaches. With the charges withdrawn, S.A. was able to avoid a criminal record.
