Cases

Proven Results

At Montes Law, we have represented clients through complex trial and appeal litigation for over 10 years. Below is a selection of our cases.

R. v. A.A.

Charges: Sexual Interference and Utter Threat

Allegations: My client was accused of sexually assaulting a minor over a span of 4 years. It was also alleged that on one occasion, my client threatened to assault the alleged victim’s father if they ever told anyone about what was happening.

Result: Not Guilty. The complainant was unreliable and her testimony was contradicted by the other prosecution witnesses. Reasonable doubt established.

Read The Case Here

R. v. A.S.

Charges: Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving

Allegations: Police observed my client’s vehicle changing lanes without signaling. Upon further investigation at the roadside, officers noticed my client to have glossy eyes, slurred speech and an odour of alcohol on his breath. He failed a roadside breath test and was taken to the police station to provide further breath samples which registered over the legal limit.

Result: Not Guilty. The police breached my client’s rights by delaying the roadside breath test, and by handcuffing my client prior to his arrest. The breath test evidence was excluded from the trial.

Read The Case Here

R. v. D.B.

Charges: Assault

Allegations: My client was accused of assaulting a by-law enforcement officer. He was convicted at trial. We appealed the conviction.

Result: Appeal Successful. The trial judge was mistaken in concluding that my client admitted to punching the by-law officer in the face during his trial testimony. The conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

Read The Case Here

R. v. D.D.

Charges: Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving

Allegations: My client was arrested after he crashed his vehicle on a busy highway. Police smelled alcohol on him and observed an empty bottle of alcohol on the ground close the vehicle. He was arrested and taken to provide breath samples which registered over the legal limit.

Result: Not Guilty. The police breached my client’s rights by not allowing him to speak to his lawyer of choice at the police station prior to providing his breath samples. The breath test evidence was excluded from the trial.

Read The Case Here

R. v. P.M.

Charges: Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving

Allegations: My client was accused of crashing his car into a roadside ditch and then running from the scene of the accident. The police chased him down, smelled an odour of alcohol on him and arrested him. He was taken to a local hospital due to injuries from the car accident. The police used blood samples taken at the hospital to try to prove that my client was driving while over the legal limit.

Result: Not Guilty. The police breached my client’s rights by not allowing him to have a private phone consultation with a lawyer while at the hospital, and by illegally taking his blood samples. The blood test evidence was excluded from the trial.

Read The Case Here

R. v. S.L.

Charges: Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving

Allegations: After a brief roadside investigation, my client was arrested and taken to a police station to provide samples of her breath, which registered over the legal limit. This was a straight forward case without any of the usual circumstances which give rise to defences.

Result: Not Guilty. My client’s case did not proceed to trial until 19 months after her arrest. This procedural delay breached my client’s right to a speedy trial. The delay was found to be unconstitutional and the charges were thrown out.

Read The Case Here

R. v. R.R.

Charges: Assault with a weapon

Allegations: My client was accused of hitting another young man in the head with a beer bottle during a parking lot brawl involving several other persons. The individuals in the fight did not previously know each other.

Result: Not Guilty. The Crown prosecution witnesses were not able to clearly identify my client as the person who used the beer bottle as a weapon. They were unable to pick out my client in a photo line-up and they were inconsistent in their descriptions of the person who used the bottle. Reasonable doubt established.

Read The Case Here

R. v. P.P.

Charges: Impaired Driving

Allegations: My client’s vehicle was stopped by police after they observed him changing lanes without signaling, speeding and weaving within his lane. He was arrested for impaired driving once the police noticed an odour of alcohol and saw him stagger when he stepped out of his car.

Result: Not Guilty. There was a lack of solid evidence to determine that my client was impaired. He spoke with and interacted with the police normally and he did not appear impaired following his arrest while at the police station. Reasonable doubt established.

Read The Case Here