R. v. B.S.2017
A schoolmate told the school principle that B.S. had touched her breasts while at school when they were alone together. B.S. had since changed city, and was not expected to return to that school. After several negotiations, the Crown agreed to forgo a trial and drop the charges, as long as B.S. agreed that he not communicate with the old schoolmate.
R. v. T.N.2017
Police charged T.N. with being the head of a criminal organization that stole trucks from concession lots and shipped them to Africa. T.N. already had a criminal record for theft, and had already spent years in jail for exporting illegal goods, but the Crown was looking at a long jail sentence for these crimes. T.N. admitted to Céline that he did ship one cargo illegally, but denied shipping over 30 stolen vehicles. Police said they had phone records and shipping records which showed T.N. to be the brains of the operation. Céline investigated every angle, turned every stone, and was able to show that the phone records and shipping records were not reliable. T.N. only plead guilty to trafficking stolen property one time, and did not serve any jail time.
R. v. R.H.2017
While riding his bike, R.H. noticed that a female bike rider was having difficulty going up a hill. He rode up to her and pushed her from the back. The woman called police and said he grabbed her buttocks. He was charged with a sexual assault. Intense negotiations with the Crown ensued, and they finally agreed to drop the charges as long as R.H. complete some community service hours.
R. v. C.M.2017
C.M. worked in a large retail location with his partner, and was in charge of security. Over $20,000 went missing from the company, and they suspected C.M. The company interviewed C.M., and persuaded him to admit to the theft so that his partner could keep his job. Although he admitted taking the money during the interview, and even wrote a statement to that effect, Céline worked tirelessly to uncover inconsistencies in the case. With those inconsistencies, she was able to convince the judge that C.M’s admission was not reliable. The charges were dropped by the Crown.
R. v. P.L.2017
In a case of road rage, P.L. tried to run a cyclist off the road. Videos of the incident were on social media, and the police decided to charge P.L. with dangerous driving and assault charges. Celine brought to light the events leading up to the incident viewed on video – that the cyclist was egging on the driver, and the Judge agreed that P.L. should not receive a criminal record, and sentenced him to a discharge.
R. v. C.G.2017
While visiting the City of Ottawa, C.G. became upset that the hotel manager kicked her out of her room because her friend was smoking. C.G. became irate, fought with the hotel manager and spit on him. The Crown wanted C.G. to go to jail, but Celine’s submissions to the judge convinced him that C.G. should not receive a criminal record, and was sentenced to a discharge.
R. v. C.A.2016
C.A. was called by the police for an investigation of a sexual assault against his granddaughter. He called Celine Dostaler immediately once he found out about the ongoing investigation: this allowed her to start her proactive approach to the criminal defence. Celine worked tirelessly to discover all the facts of the case, and the charges were dropped by the Crown before it even went to court.
R. v. G.K.2016
G.K.’s girlfriend told him that a schoolmate was harassing her and had touched her inappropriately. When G.K. saw the schoolmate, he lost control of himself and punched him several times. The Crown wanted G.K. to go to jail: he committed an unprovoked assault against someone. However, Celine’s arguments to the judge convinced him that G.K. should not have a criminal record.
R. v. D.Z.2016
D.Z. was a supervisor at work. He cultivated friendships with other employees, and would sometimes hug them when they were upset. One employee made a complaint about the hugs, and D.Z. was charged with sexually assaulting her. Celine investigated every angle of the unclear surveillance videos, and spoke with numerous other employees. At trial, the judge agreed that the video showed the employee hug D.Z. and ruled that it was a consensual act. D.Z. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. P.B.2016
The accused was charged with sexually abusing his wife and using force on their children, causing bruises and other injuries. The complainant was discredited in cross-examination and the matter resulted in an acquittal of all charges.
R. v. D.V.2015
D.V. was fascinated with guns. When he lost his job, an acquaintance offered to buy him a restricted firearm if he registered another one under his name. D.V. agreed and bought and registered two restricted firearms. When he received the guns, he invited a friend over. Both men drank alcohol and consumed drugs while target shooting. D.V.’s friend killed himself. D.V. hid the gun and told police that his friend committed suicide with a shotgun. The Crown was seeking 6-8 years in jail, but Celine successfully argued for a 5-year jail sentence, even considering that D.V. had tampered with a death scene, lied to police and trafficked a restricted weapon.
R. v. C.H.2015
C.H. had conditions not to communicate with his wife. She continued her relationship with C.H., but later filed charges that he sexually assaulted and forcibly confined her and her children in the kitchen for four hours. The Crown expected an easy win at trial, but Céline conducted her own investigation and found information that was not consistent with her statement to police. After a thorough cross-examination, C.H.’s wife was impeached and the judge found her not credible. C.H. was acquitted of sexual assault and forcible confinement.
R. v. J.J.2015
Mr. J.J. had raised his step daughter like his own since she was a young child. He had a perfect life: 2 stepdaughters, 3 of his own children, and a beautiful wife. When his step daughter turned 18 years old, she told her mother and the police that J.J. had been sexually assaulting her from the age of 12 to 16. J.J. was devastated, his life turned upside down. He could no longer see his family, and his marriage disintegrated to divorce. At trial, the step daughter recounted numerous incidents of sexual assault. Through a powerful cross-examination and persuasive final submissions, Celine convinced the judge that what seemed like a clear-cut case for the Crown remained fraught with doubt. J.J. was acquitted of all his charges.
R. v. D.D.2015
Mr. D.D. was invited to a friend’s house while he was in university. That night, after drinking and consuming marijuana excessively, he had sex with his friend while she was still asleep. D.D. was convicted of sexual assault and the Crown tried to convince the judge to sentence him to 2 years in the penitentiary. However, Celine was able to convince the judge that a 1-year jail sentence, for a first time offender, was more appropriate.
R. v. S.A.A.2014
S.A.A. was accused of sexual assault following an attempt to kiss a friend on their way home after school. The victim accused S.A.A. of grabbing her butt and putting his hands down her pants. Céline Dostaler’s defence showed that the Crown had not proven a sexual assault, and S.A.A. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. J.H.2014
J.H. was charged with possession of child pornography. According to the police, J.H.’s collection was one of the largest they had ever seen. The day before J.H. was sentenced, someone else with a smaller collection of child pornography was sentenced to 2 years in jail. Céline worked with J.H. to ensure that he was on the road towards rehabilitation, and she successfully argued that all of J.H.’s hard work towards rehabilitation should afford him a lesser sentence. J.H. was sentenced to 1 year in jail, for possession of one of the largest collections of child pornography in the Ottawa-area.
R. v. L.L.2014
The manager of a sports equipment store was accused of sexually assaulting an employee following a discussion with her regarding money shortages in the nightly cash receipts. The defence proved that the employee was not credible and all charges were acquitted.
R. v. R.H.2014
R.H. was stopped by police because they suspected he was driving while impaired. At the station, police tried to convince R.H. to call a lawyer, but R.H. refused. He was brought into the breath technician room to provide two samples of breath, and the officer read R.H. his rights to counsel again. R.H. then asked to speak to a lawyer, and told the officer that he would not provide a sample without first speaking to a lawyer. The officer did not allow R.H. to call a lawyer, stating that he had a chance to do so earlier and refused. Céline successfully argued that even though he was originally allowed to speak to a lawyer before providing a breath sample and he refused, that his right to speak to a lawyer was denied by the second officer, because that officer refused to allow him to call a lawyer. R.H. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. A.P.2014
Police conducted a traffic-stop on A.P. for having a malfunctioning break light. When speaking with the driver, the police noticed a roach and immediately arrested A.P. for possession of drugs. The police searched A.P. and found a small amount of marijuana and cocaine. Céline Dostaler successfully argued at trial that the police breached A.P.’s rights by conducting a search of the car without anything more than a roach. The drugs found by the police were excluded from the evidence, and A.P. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. P.W.2013
P.W. was charged with impaired and refusal to provide a breath sample. He drank more than 6 ounces of vodka and drove to the Beer Store, where he bought 2 tall cans and a 12-pack of beer. After he finished his two tall cans of beer, he decided to drive home. Witnesses called the police because P.W. was driving erratically and weaving across lanes. When police arrived, P.W. hit a snowbank and was laying down across the driver and passenger seat. When police asked that he provide a breath sample, P.W. refused to blow into the machine, instead blowing into thin air. P.W. wanted to plead guilty to all charges. Through effective advocacy, P.W. only plead guilty to impaired driving, was sentenced to a $2,000 fine, and a 12-month driving prohibition. P.W. did not have to plead guilty to the charge of refusal to provide a breath sample.
R. v. J.L.2013
J.L. was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle and impaired driving. J.L. went drinking with his friends at a bar. At closing time, he knew he was too drunk to drive home so he planned on walking with his friends and getting his car in the morning. Paramedics were parked near his car and noticed J.L. leave his group of friends, take a seat in his car and turn on the engine. Paramedics blocked the car to prevent him from driving and called police. At trial, J.L.’s friends said that they were waiting for J.L. to get out of his car before they walked home, but that they did not see that he had turned on the car and put it in reverse. J.L. was acquitted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
R. v. R.H.2013
As the power of attorney for his grandmother, R.H. paid himself over $300,000 from her account. R.H. was charged with fraud and the Crown was seeking jail time for many years. Céline’s arguments resulted in the judge agreeing to put R.H. under house arrest.
R. v. S.C.D.2013
S.C.D. was accused of trafficking marijuana because she was in possession of a large quantity of marijuana, a scale, and baggies. Although the accused stated that the marijuana was for personal use, she was charged for possession for purposes of trafficking. The Crown wanted S.C.D. to go to jail for 90 days, however, the defence was able to fight the trafficking charges and the accused was found guilty of simple possession of marijuana and had to pay a small fine.
R. v. E.T.2013
E.T. had sold crack cocaine and heroin to undercover officers. The Crown wanted E.T. to go to jail for eight years. E.T. had completed drug rehabilitation before he was charged with old heroin offences, and had beaten his drug addiction. Through many meetings with the Crown, Céline was able to convince them to drop the heroin charges. E.T. was convicted of selling crack cocaine and breaching conditions, and instead of a jail sentence, Céline was able to convince a judge that E.T. serve a short period of probation.
R. v. R.O.2013
The accused and his girlfriend were drinking and an argument ensued which resulted in R.O. punching his girlfriend in the mouth. The Crown was looking for a 9-month jail sentence, however Céline Dostaler was able to persuade the judge to sentence the accused only to house arrest.
R. v. J.B.2012
J.B. was accused of unlocking the warehouse door where he worked, allowing thieves to enter and steal thousands of dollars worth of merchandise. A video surveillance tape captured an individual, identified as J.B. by his boss, allowing thieves to enter the warehouse. J.B. was acquitted because Céline Dostaler was able to convince the judge that he was not the person unlocking the door in the security video.
R. v. D.H.2012
D.H. was accused of trafficking cocaine as part of a “criminal organization” — a conviction that adds 1 year of jail to any sentence. Celine worked as a junior counsel with the defence team. Although most of the defence team agreed that D.H. and his friends formed a criminal organization, Céline’s research showed that the group did not meet the definition under the law. This research was pivotal in convincing the judge that D.H. and his friends did not form a “criminal organization,” and it prevented D.H. from being sentenced to one extra year in prison.