Recent Cases

In a domestic assault trial in Toronto, the Crown adduced witness evidence about the complainant having alleged injuries following the incident. The defence’s theory was that the complainant was the aggressor and that any injuries were the result of self-defence. The cross-examination of the complainant uncovered many inconsistencies, and the crown asked the charges be dismissed.

It was alleged that she encountered a former partner walking on the road and hit him with her car. It was alleged that she then hit him a second time with the car. It was the defence position that the client was innocent and numerous pre-trials were conducted. Ultimately the charge was withdrawn.

The client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference and a breach of bail charge. The sexual offences were related to allegations made by a former friend of the client. It was the defence position that the complainant was lying and had a motive to do so. The matter was scheduled for a preliminary hearing. Over several days of testimony, the defence was able to secure testimony that the Complainant lied to the police and her mother. Further, the defence was able to elicit testimony from the complainant’s friend that she coached her to lie to the police on her behalf. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the sexual assault and sexual interference charges were withdrawn.

He was discovered in a car with a large amount of drugs in the trunk. Following a thorough examination of the disclosure, a number of major concerns emerged. The prosecution dropped all charges after continuing negotiations.

The clients retained Mr. Karapancev after their original lawyer was appointed to be a judge. The defendants were facing over 30 charges related to allegations of unfair business practices. The matter had originally been scheduled for a multi-week trial with pre-trial applications. After being retained we reviewed disclosure and had discussions with the Crown. Ultimately all charges were withdrawn.

The defence was able to demonstrate that the arresting police had violated a number of the client’s charter rights during the discovery preliminary hearing. The Crown stayed all charges at the first appearance in the Superior Court of Justice.

The trial took place in Toronto during the “COVID era,” and the Crown brought an application to have the complainant testify out of Court. The complainant claimed she was afraid of contracting COVID-19 if she attended court in person, specifically because she cared for her elderly grandparents. The defence conducted an investigation of its own and discovered through social media that, rather than following public health measures to avoid COVID-19 infection, the complainant had breached the Ontario “Stay at Home Order” by attending social gatherings and going to parties. When the defence presented this evidence, the Crown withdrew their application immediately. The trial began with testimony from the complainant in Court. Midway through the defence’s cross-examination of her, the Crown withdrew the criminal charge.

The client was charged with sexual assault in a date rape scenario. The trial was held in Oshawa, and the defence admitted that sexual intercourse occurred but contended that it was consensual. On the second day of the complainant’s cross-examination, the defence was able get her to admit to the facts that she lied to the police, lied to her mother, and tampered with evidence she submitted to the police. The prosecution requested that the judge dismiss the charge.

He and his co-defendant were accused of robbing the complainant with a gun and stabbing him. The defence asserted that this was an instance of mistaken identity. The Crown withdrew all charges on the first day of the preliminary inquiry.

Midway through the trial, the Crown asked for the charges to be withdrawn due to a lack of a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The police were contacted after he was seen leaving a restaurant when employees feared he was intoxicated. He was arrested and his breath tests were found to be above the legal limit. The defence contended that the length of time required to obtain trial dates violated his 11(b) Charter rights. The judge agreed and the charges were stayed.

He was discovered asleep in the driver’s seat of his automobile on the shoulder of a highway. He provided breathalyzer readings that were higher than the legal limit. The defence filed an 11(b) Charter Application, asserting that the case had been unreasonably delayed. The Court agreed and the proceedings were stayed.

The client was charged with sexual assault involving an allegation of a serious rape at a house party in Brampton. The complainant claimed that the client drugged her and then sexually assaulted her in different locations throughout the house. The trial, which lasted one week, took place in the Superior Court of Justice. The complainant was impeached throughout a lengthy cross-examination on past statements she made to the police, sexual assault examination nurse, and during the preliminary hearing. The defence did not call any witnesses, and the defendant was acquitted.

The Human Trafficking count hinged completely on the evidence of the Complainant. After a thorough and vigorous cross-examination lasting several days, the trial judge rejected much of the Complainant’s evidence and described her as a “pathological liar”. The client was acquitted of the Human Trafficking count.

All charges were withdrawn.

One was an alleged domestic assault, while the other involved a rape. The defence position was that this was an untruthful complainant with motivations to fabricate these claims. The domestic assault case was scheduled for trial, and the sexual assault case was scheduled for a preliminary hearing. Ultimately all charges were withdrawn.

At trial the investigative work of the arresting officer was undermined, and serious Charter issues were revealed. The Crown ultimately asked the judge to dismiss all counts.

The charges were dropped after ongoing discussions with the Crown.

At the preliminary hearing in Toronto, the defence vigorously cross-examined the complainant and got her to admit on the stand that she had not been candid. The cross-examination uncovered numerous flaws in her credibility. The Crown ultimately requested that the judge discharge the accused on the charge.

After making strong arguments to the Crown regarding a breach to the client’s Rights to Counsel, the charges were withdrawn.

A variety of charges were brought against the client. Exporting fentanyl and conspiring to export fentanyl were two of the charges, for which he was charged with four other co-accused. On those counts, our client was dismissed at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing.

The allegations were that the client robbed the victim at gunpoint, and the matter was scheduled for a week-long preliminary hearing in Toronto. At the preliminary hearing, the client was discharged on all counts.

A trial was set and after ongoing negotiations with the Crown, the charge was withdrawn.

The client was charged with Sexual Assault involving allegations of date rape in Brampton. The defence theory was that the complainant fabricated the claims. Mr. Karapancev vigorously cross-examined the complainant during the preliminary hearing, exposing issues with her credibility and reliability. Following Mr. Karapancev’s cross-examination, the Crown decided to stay the charge.

The client was charged with Sexual Assault involving a date rape allegation at a condo party in Toronto. The defence’s position was that the complainant was patently unreliable and that the allegations were false. The charge was eventually withdrawn following continued negotiations with the Crown.

All charges were withdrawn on the day of the trial.

The drugs were discovered when a search warrant in Toronto was conducted at the client’s alleged residence. The defence questioned the police witnesses at the preliminary hearing, argued that there was insufficient proof linking the client to the drugs. The judge agreed, and all of the charges were dismissed.

The accusations included that the complainant was subjected to a violent and severe sexual assault. The defence had persuasive negotiations with the Crown attorney, arguing that they could not establish that the male in question was the client. The Crown withdrew all sexual assault charges on the first day of the case’s preliminary hearing.

Client was charged with sexual assault. The allegations involved the client having sex with the complainant when she was allegedly too drunk to consent. The client was adamant from the start that he was being falsely accused. The defence retained a private investigator to assist in finding witnesses. The defence also brought several pre-trial applications, including a “Seaboyer Application” to admit sexual images that the Complainant sent the client. At trial multiple exhibits were filed of text messages and Facebook messages between the client and the Complainant. The Complainant was vigorously cross-examined for several days by the defence. The defence made arguments that the Complainant was not credible or reliable. The client was acquitted.

Client was accused of raping a former girlfriend. The client was adamant that he was being falsely accused. The Crown was relying on the evidence of the Complainant and medical evidence to corroborate the sexual activity. The defence successfully brought a “Seaboyer Application” to adduce evidence of the Complainant’s prior sexual acts. This had the powerful effect of neutralizing the medical evidence. The defence cross-examined the doctor in question and forcefully challenged the Complainant. The judge acquitted the client.

The defence vigorously cross-examined the Complainant on his criminal past and drug use at the Preliminary Hearing. The Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges due to the defence impeaching the credibility of the complainant.

At trial the defence was successful is having the client’s police statement excluded from evidence. The defence skilfully challenged the eye-witness relied on by the Crown. On the second day of trial the client was acquitted.

The gun and ammunition were allegedly discovered following a search warrant in the client’s bedroom. Given triable issues that became apparent, the defence convinced the Crown during negotiations that they did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn.

One was an alleged domestic assault, while the other involved a rape. The defence position was that this was an untruthful complainant with motivations to fabricate these claims. The domestic assault case was scheduled for trial, and the sexual assault case was scheduled for a preliminary hearing. Ultimately all charges were withdrawn.

At trial the arresting officer was cross-examined on a number of technical legal issues and flaws in his investigation were exposed. Client was acquitted on all charges.

After conducting an investigation with the client, it became evident that there was documentation that contradicted the complainants’ accounts. The charges were dismissed following continued discussions with the Crown prosecutor.

After drafting and filing notices alleging a number of breaches of the client’s constitutional rights over the conduct of the police, the charges were withdrawn on the trial date.

Following an examination of the disclosure, it became clear that the police had violated several of the client’s constitutional rights. The charges were withdrawn after consultations with the Crown prosecutor.