Sexual Assault / Sexual Interference

The accused, A.F. was charged with multiple charges including three counts of sexual assault, three counts of assault, two counts of voyeurism, unlawfully being in a dwelling house, and criminal harrassment. On the day of the trial, counsel was able to successfully negotiate the withdrawal of every count against the accused except for one of assault. The accused was placed on a probation order for three years avoiding a jail sentence.

The accused, S.D. was initially charged with sexual assault. Counsel was able to reach an assault simpliciter, and the accused pled guilty to lesser offense and received a conditional discharge and a 2 year probation. The conditional discharge was negotiated at the hearing prior to the trial. The counsel ensured the offense would come off his criminal record. This was crucial for the accused, as his spouse was sponsoring him in Canada to become a permanent resident. The accused was able to complete his sponsorship application and gain his permanent residency in Canada.

The accused, W.G. was charged with 16 charges including secretly recording a person for sexual purposes, sexual interference with a person under 16 years of age, sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threat of bodily harm. The accused is the biological father and the primary caregiver of the three victims. W.G. was accused of assaulting the victims sexually and physically for years threatening them with a variety of weapons not to speak. The accused was reported to the police by the mother, and then later on turned himself in where he was arrested, charged, and then released on an undertaking. The accused was charged with failure to comply. In the crown pretrial discussion, counsel Jonathan Pyzer was able to convince the crown of reasonable prospect for conviction, and that the public interest would not be served by this prosecution. Jonathan Pyzer successfully convinced the crown to drop the charges against the accused, if he entered a S. 810 peace bond.

The accused, U.G. was charged with sexual assault under S.271 of the CCC. The accused was facing very serious charges, and the crown was seeking a significant penitentiary sentence, a find of guilt. The matter was set down to a contested trial that went on for several days. Jonathan
Pyzer represented the accused and ultimately after many months, he was able to have the crown give up on the prosecution and offer to invite the court to acquit the accused of all the charges if agreed to sign a section 8(10) peace bond.

The accused, J.S. was charged with sexual assault, assault (choking), and forcible confinement. A significant amount of resources were put into mounting a defense for the accused, who vehemently denied the significant allegations against him, including obtaining interpreters and transcriptionists to translate and produce transcripts of serious recordings beneficial to the defense and bringing pretrial applications to have evidence of other sexual activity admitted into evidence at trial in order for him to make full answer and defense. The crown’s initial position on the resolution was a 5 to 10-year sentence, a DNA submission order subject to S.307 of the CC, a Weapon prohibition order subject to S.110 of the Weapons Prohibitions Act, and a Sex Offender Information Registry Order. The matter was set to trial, and with successful pretrial preparation, counsel Jonathan Pyzer was able to have all charges against the accused dismissed. The accused did not obtain a criminal record, a weapon prohibition order, a DNA order, or a Sex Offender Information Registry Order.

The accused, S.F., was charged with one count of sexual assault. The complainant in this matter was S.F.,’s baby-mother. It was alleged that S.F., forced sexual intercourse upon the complainant and raped her. S.F., adamantly maintained his innocence with respect to these allegations. Mr. Pyzer represented S.F., and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn at the request of the crown attorney’s.

The accused a was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. It was alleged that a sexually assaulted his twelve-year-old niece by touching her inappropriately and sticking his tongue in her mouth. Mr. Kostman represented A., He was acquitted after trial.

G.N., was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference. G.N.,’s wife contacted the police and advised them that she believed that G.N., had sexually assaulted their two young daughters. The allegations against G.N., were that while bathing his two young daughters, ages three and four, he advised them that a good way to keep water out of their mouths while bathing, was to put daddy’s penis in their mouths. Mr. Pyzer represented G.N., during a two-day preliminary inquiry in which Mr. Pyzer was successful in having the charges against him dismissed. Mr. Pyzer successfully argued that there was no reliable evidence before the court on which a properly instructed judge and jury could convict. As such, G.N., has absolutely no criminal record in relation to these charges.

A.L., was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of simple assault. The allegations against A.L., were that he was at his girlfriend’s apartment and jumped on the complainant, punched her in the face and then forced her to engage in sexual relations. Mr. Pyzer represented The accused at his preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice and was successful in having the charges against The accused dismissed. As a result, The accused does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.

The accused, Y.O.P. was charged with one count of sexual assault. The accused and the complainant had known one another, as the complainant had previously worked for the accused and had attended the same social gatherings occasionally.  It was alleged that the complainant had attended a mutual friends birthday party, hosted at Y.O.P.’s residence. During the birthday party the complainant consumed several alcoholic beverages. The complainant and the defendant’s wife engaged in mutual hugging and kissing, which the accused was aware of and encouraged. Eventually the other guests left, leaving only the complainant, the defendant and the defendant’s wife at the residence. The complainant continued to consume alcohol. Allegedly the complainant does not recall going to bed, but was awoken at approximately 6am from pain caused by the accused penetrating him anally. The complainant then jumped out of bed and called a cab to leave. As the complainant was leaving the defendant asked him not the say anything about what had occurred, to which the complainant agreed. The complainant went to police station later that day to file a report. The accused incurred a bruise to the right cheek (unknown how it was received) and rectal bleeding as a result of the incident. Toronto Criminal LAwyer, Jonathan Pyzer represented Y.O.P. and was successful at having the charge against him withdrawn. Despite the Crown’s initial reluctance, Mr. Pyzer was able to convince her that that the case against the defendant was weak and that the charges should therefore be withdrawn. 

The accused, Dr. U. was charged with one count of sexual assault. It was alleged that Dr. U., had met the complainant, a potential client two years prior to the incident being reported to police. It was alleged that they had met in the context of a potential patient and doctor relationship, as the complainant was interested in breast augmentation and micro dermabrasion treatment. It was alleged that during their first in-person meeting Dr. U. took the complainant out for lunch, following which he took her to a hotel and paid for a room. Allegedly the complainant was under the impression that they were in the hotel room to conduct a consultation for the surgeries she was interested in. Once in the hotel room it was alleged that Dr. U sexually assaulted the complainant, forcing her to have intercourse without her consent. The complainant claimed that was the only time she had had any contact with the accused. Jonathan Pyzer represented Dr. U. and was successful at having him found not guilty on all charges. The defence secured evidence proving that the complainant had lied in her statement to the police which was used by the defence at trial. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having the charges against Dr. U. dismissed at trial.