Brian J. Smith is an experienced criminal lawyer dedicated to smart, strategic advocacy. He practices in all areas of criminal law, and is committed to delivering a high caliber defence to your charges to achieve the best possible outcome.
Past results do not indicate results in future cases. The outcome of any case will depend on the specific facts of that case. No lawyer can guarantee the results of a case.
R v G.S.
G.S. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. At trial, Brian successfully challenged the reliability of the alleged victim. The judge accepted G.S.' version of events and found G.S. not guilty of both charges.
R v D.L.
D.L. was originally charged with sexual assault and possession of child pornography. Before the trial concluded, D.L. was also charged with breaching his release conditions. The Crown would not agree to release him. Brian was able to convince the judge that D.L. could safely be released back into the community.
R v A.J.
A.J. was charged with sexual assault. Through negotiations with the prosecutor, A.J. was allowed to enter into a 12 month peace bond and the sexual assault charges were withdrawn, resulting in no criminal record.
R v T.C.
Refusing to Provide Breath Sample
T.C. was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. At trial, Brian challenged the credibility of the officer and was able to show that there was insufficient evidence to prove that T.C. had in fact refused. As a result, T.C. was found not guilty.
R v N.N.
N.N. was convicted of sexual assault following a trial. At sentencing, the Prosecutor argued for a sentence of 20 months of incarceration to be followed by probation. Brian was able to convince the judge that in the circumstances of this particular offence, a period of 4 months of jail plus probation was appropriate.
R v D.W.
D.W. was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80. Prior to trial, Brian was able to convince the prosecutor to abandon the over 80 charge. At trial, Brian succesfully challenged the evidence of the police, and D.W. was acquitted of the impaired driving charge
R v. K.S.
K.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving over .08. Brian set the matter for a trial and alleged that K.S.'s constitutional rights had been violated by a lengthy police detention before testing began. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor agreed to stay the charges against K.S.
R v B.B.
B.B. was charged with sexual assault. At the preliminary inquiry, Brian was able to show that the complainant's recollection was quite different than what text message evidence proved. As a result of negotiations after the hearing, the prosecutor stayed the charged against B.B., resulting in no criminal record.
R v R.U.
R.U. pled guilty to a minor sexual assault. At sentencing, the prosecutor asked for a lengthy probation order with strict conditions including various sex offender programming. Brian convinced the Court that R.U. should instead be given a shorter period of probation as part of a conditional discharge resulting in no long term criminal record with minimal conditions
R v K.B.
K.B. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. Before the start of the preliminary inquiry, the prosecutor agreed to stay all charges against K.B. As a result, K.B. received no criminal conviction.
R v K.K.
K.K. plead guilty to fraud and bankruptcy offences. The prosecutor originally wanted 12 months jail. At sentencing, Brian argued for a lower sentence given K.K.'s personal circumstances. The Judge agreed and imposed 30 days of jail to be served on weekends, with probation to follow. As a result, K.K was able to maintain employment despite his prison sentence.
R v J.V.
Impaired / Refusal
J.V. was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and driving while impaired. Brian scheduled the matter for trial, but prior to the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor agreed that the case was not likely to succeed, and all charges were stayed against J.V.
R v K.S.
K.S. was charged with assault with a weapon against a domestic partner. Early in the proceedings, Brian reviewed the case and was able to convince the prosecutor that no wrongdoing had actually occurred. As a result, the prosecutor stayed the charges and K.S. received no criminal record.
R v M.N.
Impaired / Over 80
M.N. was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit. Brian constitutionally challenged the investigating officers actions. The judge agreed with the challenge, and as a result, the prosecutor stayed the charges prior to the conclusion of the trial. M.N. received no criminal record from the incident.
R v S.I.
S.I. was charged with aggravated assault. At trial, Brian successfully challenged the Crown witnesses about their ability to identify S.I. as the attacker. As a result, S.I. was acquitted of the charge.
R v J.L.
J.L. was charged with assault causing bodily harm. At trial, Brian was able to negotiate a deal whereby J.L. plead guilty to the lesser offence of assault and received a conditional discharge, resulting in no long term criminal record.
R v E.S.
E.S. was charged with sexual assault. At trial, Brian challenged the complainant's version of events. As a result, the judge was not convinced that the charge had bee proven and E.S. was found not guilty.
R v J.L.
Unlawful Confinement / Drugs
J.L was charged with assault, uttering threats, and forcible confinement, along with possession of a controlled substance. On the trial date the prosecutor requested an adjournment to procure a witness who had not been subpoenaed. Brian successfully argued that the Crown had not been diligent in securing the attendance of the witness, and as a result, the most serious charges were dismissed.
R v J.M.
Impaired / Refusal
J.M. was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a sample of breath. At trial, Brian thoroughly challenged the evidence of the involved police officers, and before the trial was concluded, the prosecutor agreed to stay the charges, meaning J.M. received no criminal record from the incident.
R v E.C.
E.C. plead guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm. The Prosecutor urged the court to impose a weapon's prohibition so that E.C. could not possess a firearm for several years. Brian was able to convince the Court not to impose any firearms prohibition so that E.C. could engage in traditional hunting.
R v E.S.
Break and Enter / Assault
E.S. was charged with breaking and entering and committing an assault. During cross examination at trial, Brian obtained several helpful admissions from one crown witness, and before the trial was concluded, the prosecutor agreed to stay the charges. As a result, E.S. has no criminal record.