|
Experience and JudgmentOver seven years of conducting trials and appeals, representing hundreds of defendants in criminal, regulatory and professional disciplinary matters, Mr. Shulman has developed the intuition and judgment that leads to successful outcomes.
Mr. Shulman is ready to apply his experience, judgment and skill to your case, defending your interests both in and out of the courtroom. Below are some examples of his successes. Contact Mr. Shulman by e-mail or phone to schedule an initial consultation. Outcomes are based in part on the facts of each case; thus, past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. |
Murder
R. v. L.C.
This young woman was facing a second-degree murder charge for the stabbing of her abusive boyfriend. A lengthy, inculpatory statement was given by the client following a period of sleep deprivation in a cold cell and the false suggestion by one detective that the client might not be charged with murder if she waived her right to silence and spoke to police. Mr. Shulman and co-counsel litigated the admissibility of the statement, and it was excluded by the Trial Judge. At trial, the jury found that the client did not intend to kill the boyfriend and acquitted her of murder, finding her guilty instead of manslaughter. This was an excellent result based on the facts of the case.
R. v. J.P.
Mr. Shulman worked as co-counsel for this client, who was alleged to have been hired by a woman (now serving a life sentence for first-degree murder) to kill her husband for an insurance payout. At trial, the Crown's case against the client rested on a key witness; however, during the investigation, the witness had been subjected to improper threats, inducements and information contamination by detectives, as well as a misleading polygraph ("lie detector") test, which the witness was told he had failed. After having an emotional breakdown, the witness was taken to dinner by detectives. Following dinner, the witness implicated the client for the first time. At the outset of the trial, the defence brought a constitutional application to have the witness' evidence excluded on the basis that it was unreliable as a result of the police misconduct. Before the Trial Judge could rule on the application, the Crown offered, and the client accepted, a guilty plea to the charge of accessory after the fact to murder, and a two-year sentence. The client's charge of first-degree murder was withdrawn. This was an excellent outcome that avoided the possible sentence of life imprisonment.
R. v. P.S.
Mr. Shulman worked as co-counsel for this client, who was one of three men charged with first degree murder in relation to a botched home invasion of a drug dealer that resulted in the death of one man in the residence. A thorough review of the forensic evidence, as well as an effective cross-examination of the surviving drug dealer, who was a witness to the killing, established that the client had not been the stabber and that none of the accused had attended the residence with the specific intention to kill the victim, though that was a foreseeable risk of the brazen robbery. The jury apparently accepted the defence theory of the case and convicted the accused of the lesser offence of manslaughter; the accused thereby avoided a sentence of life imprisonment.
This young woman was facing a second-degree murder charge for the stabbing of her abusive boyfriend. A lengthy, inculpatory statement was given by the client following a period of sleep deprivation in a cold cell and the false suggestion by one detective that the client might not be charged with murder if she waived her right to silence and spoke to police. Mr. Shulman and co-counsel litigated the admissibility of the statement, and it was excluded by the Trial Judge. At trial, the jury found that the client did not intend to kill the boyfriend and acquitted her of murder, finding her guilty instead of manslaughter. This was an excellent result based on the facts of the case.
R. v. J.P.
Mr. Shulman worked as co-counsel for this client, who was alleged to have been hired by a woman (now serving a life sentence for first-degree murder) to kill her husband for an insurance payout. At trial, the Crown's case against the client rested on a key witness; however, during the investigation, the witness had been subjected to improper threats, inducements and information contamination by detectives, as well as a misleading polygraph ("lie detector") test, which the witness was told he had failed. After having an emotional breakdown, the witness was taken to dinner by detectives. Following dinner, the witness implicated the client for the first time. At the outset of the trial, the defence brought a constitutional application to have the witness' evidence excluded on the basis that it was unreliable as a result of the police misconduct. Before the Trial Judge could rule on the application, the Crown offered, and the client accepted, a guilty plea to the charge of accessory after the fact to murder, and a two-year sentence. The client's charge of first-degree murder was withdrawn. This was an excellent outcome that avoided the possible sentence of life imprisonment.
R. v. P.S.
Mr. Shulman worked as co-counsel for this client, who was one of three men charged with first degree murder in relation to a botched home invasion of a drug dealer that resulted in the death of one man in the residence. A thorough review of the forensic evidence, as well as an effective cross-examination of the surviving drug dealer, who was a witness to the killing, established that the client had not been the stabber and that none of the accused had attended the residence with the specific intention to kill the victim, though that was a foreseeable risk of the brazen robbery. The jury apparently accepted the defence theory of the case and convicted the accused of the lesser offence of manslaughter; the accused thereby avoided a sentence of life imprisonment.
Fraud
R. v. H.M.
This client owned and operated a pharmacy. She was charged with criminal fraud with respect to allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars of false billings under the Ontario Drug Benefits program. Those charges were withdrawn at the preliminary inquiry. A year later, new charges for the same allegations were laid, this time under the Ontario Drug Benefits Act. Mr. Shulman filed a constitutional application for unreasonable delay based on a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which supported his argument that the "clock began ticking" back when the original criminal charges were first laid. The application was initially denied by a Justice of the Peace, but it appeared that the Justice had not actually read the written argument before summarily ruling on the application. Mr. Shulman brought an application for the Justice to declare a mistrial due to the denial of the Natural Justice principle audi alteram partem ("the right to be heard"). The application was granted and a mistrial was declared. Following other procedural irregularities in the Ontario Court of Justice resulting in further delay, Mr. Shulman brought an application before the Regional Senior Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to assign the case to a Provincial Judge (and not a Justice of the Peace). Before that application could be heard, the prosecutor withdrew all of the charges. This was an excellent outcome.
This client owned and operated a pharmacy. She was charged with criminal fraud with respect to allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars of false billings under the Ontario Drug Benefits program. Those charges were withdrawn at the preliminary inquiry. A year later, new charges for the same allegations were laid, this time under the Ontario Drug Benefits Act. Mr. Shulman filed a constitutional application for unreasonable delay based on a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which supported his argument that the "clock began ticking" back when the original criminal charges were first laid. The application was initially denied by a Justice of the Peace, but it appeared that the Justice had not actually read the written argument before summarily ruling on the application. Mr. Shulman brought an application for the Justice to declare a mistrial due to the denial of the Natural Justice principle audi alteram partem ("the right to be heard"). The application was granted and a mistrial was declared. Following other procedural irregularities in the Ontario Court of Justice resulting in further delay, Mr. Shulman brought an application before the Regional Senior Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to assign the case to a Provincial Judge (and not a Justice of the Peace). Before that application could be heard, the prosecutor withdrew all of the charges. This was an excellent outcome.
Sexual Assault
R. v. F.S.
Mr. Shulman worked with senior counsel in representing this client, a psychologist accused of sexually assaulting a patient during multiple sessions. Before trial, the defence obtained a large volume of records, not included in disclosure, that revealed a striking pattern of deceit and dishonesty by the patient. The client was acquitted at trial.
R. v. G.M.
This client had a lengthy criminal record for serious sexual assaults. After first securing the withdrawal of charges under the Sex Offender Information Registry (SOIRA), Mr. Shulman represented this client again in relation to a serious sexual assault. The client had recently finished serving a seven-year sentence. He was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with a vulnerable person. Before the preliminary inquiry, he was facing approximately nine-years' imprisonment and a possible Dangerous Offender order, which could have resulted in an indefinite period of imprisonment. Following an effective cross-examination of the complainant, the prosecutor offered, and the client accepted, a guilty plea and one year of further imprisonment. This was an excellent outcome in circumstances where the stakes were high.
Mr. Shulman worked with senior counsel in representing this client, a psychologist accused of sexually assaulting a patient during multiple sessions. Before trial, the defence obtained a large volume of records, not included in disclosure, that revealed a striking pattern of deceit and dishonesty by the patient. The client was acquitted at trial.
R. v. G.M.
This client had a lengthy criminal record for serious sexual assaults. After first securing the withdrawal of charges under the Sex Offender Information Registry (SOIRA), Mr. Shulman represented this client again in relation to a serious sexual assault. The client had recently finished serving a seven-year sentence. He was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with a vulnerable person. Before the preliminary inquiry, he was facing approximately nine-years' imprisonment and a possible Dangerous Offender order, which could have resulted in an indefinite period of imprisonment. Following an effective cross-examination of the complainant, the prosecutor offered, and the client accepted, a guilty plea and one year of further imprisonment. This was an excellent outcome in circumstances where the stakes were high.
Provincial offences
ONTARIO (WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD) v. V.F.
This client was an injured worker receiving benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. He was charged with wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstance in connection with his entitlement to benefits. Mr. Shulman was retained to represent the client following a successful appeal by the prosecutor, overturning the client's acquittal at trial. Mr. Shulman succeeded in obtaining "leave to appeal" at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The issue on appeal was the correct interpretation of the mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) for this particular regulatory offence (Judges and Justices of the Peace in the lower courts were in disagreement on this issue). This issue was central to the proper determination of the guilt or innocence of the client, based on the facts of his case. Ultimately, Mr. Shulman and his client succeeded on appeal: the Court of Appeal accepted the Appellant's position on the correct interpretation of the mens rea of the offence, effectively raising the bar for all future prosecutions. Further, rather than order a new trial for the client, the Court of Appeal ordered that his acquittal be reinstated. This was an excellent result for the client; it also shaped the law for the better for all injured workers receiving benefits from the WSIB.
Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. [Store Chain]
This corporate client owned a store which was charged by the municipality for selling cigarettes to an underage test shopper. A review of the store's training regime and the documentation thereof revealed a defence of due diligence for the corporation, notwithstanding the fact that cigarettes were indeed sold by a store clerk to the underage test shopper. Following negotiations with the prosecutor, all charges against the corporation were withdrawn.
This client was an injured worker receiving benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. He was charged with wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstance in connection with his entitlement to benefits. Mr. Shulman was retained to represent the client following a successful appeal by the prosecutor, overturning the client's acquittal at trial. Mr. Shulman succeeded in obtaining "leave to appeal" at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The issue on appeal was the correct interpretation of the mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) for this particular regulatory offence (Judges and Justices of the Peace in the lower courts were in disagreement on this issue). This issue was central to the proper determination of the guilt or innocence of the client, based on the facts of his case. Ultimately, Mr. Shulman and his client succeeded on appeal: the Court of Appeal accepted the Appellant's position on the correct interpretation of the mens rea of the offence, effectively raising the bar for all future prosecutions. Further, rather than order a new trial for the client, the Court of Appeal ordered that his acquittal be reinstated. This was an excellent result for the client; it also shaped the law for the better for all injured workers receiving benefits from the WSIB.
Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. [Store Chain]
This corporate client owned a store which was charged by the municipality for selling cigarettes to an underage test shopper. A review of the store's training regime and the documentation thereof revealed a defence of due diligence for the corporation, notwithstanding the fact that cigarettes were indeed sold by a store clerk to the underage test shopper. Following negotiations with the prosecutor, all charges against the corporation were withdrawn.
Domestic Assault
R. v. J.H.
The client, a young man, was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Subsequent to his arrest, a psychiatric assessment revealed that he had been previously misdiagnosed with a mental illness; consequently, he had taken a psychoactive drug to which he had likely experienced an adverse reaction at the time of the offence. As a result of bringing these findings to the attention of the Crown, the case was approved for mental health diversion and eventually stayed without a peace bond.
R. v. F.C.
The client, a youth as defined by the Youth Criminal Justice Act was charged with a series of assaults and threats against his ex-girlfriend. After a series of discussions with the Crown, and private anger management counselling completed by the client, the Court imposed a conditional discharge at the joint request of the defence and the Crown, thereby preventing the young man from having a Youth Record.
The client, a young man, was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Subsequent to his arrest, a psychiatric assessment revealed that he had been previously misdiagnosed with a mental illness; consequently, he had taken a psychoactive drug to which he had likely experienced an adverse reaction at the time of the offence. As a result of bringing these findings to the attention of the Crown, the case was approved for mental health diversion and eventually stayed without a peace bond.
R. v. F.C.
The client, a youth as defined by the Youth Criminal Justice Act was charged with a series of assaults and threats against his ex-girlfriend. After a series of discussions with the Crown, and private anger management counselling completed by the client, the Court imposed a conditional discharge at the joint request of the defence and the Crown, thereby preventing the young man from having a Youth Record.
Drug Trafficking
R. v. D.W.
This client was charged with trafficking cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime. A psychiatric assessment of the client revealed underlying and untreated mental health and drug addiction issues. The client was referred to proper drug treatment and the matter was adjourned. Following completion of the treatment, the client accepted responsibility for the drug trafficking in Court. The Crown asked the Court to impose a sentence of four months' imprisonment. Following submissions on behalf of the client, the Court imposed a suspended sentence (no jail).
This client was charged with trafficking cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime. A psychiatric assessment of the client revealed underlying and untreated mental health and drug addiction issues. The client was referred to proper drug treatment and the matter was adjourned. Following completion of the treatment, the client accepted responsibility for the drug trafficking in Court. The Crown asked the Court to impose a sentence of four months' imprisonment. Following submissions on behalf of the client, the Court imposed a suspended sentence (no jail).
The initials of former clients have been changed to protect their identities; facts that could identify them have been omitted.