Paul Lewandowski and the firm are counsel on hundreds of criminal cases per year. As a matter of practicality we are only posting a small sampling of five recent notable cases. For most cases, the state of the law has been determined. For example, it is unlikely that your case will require a re-litigation of what a sexual or domestic assault is. The issue will be what happened, and who did what. In these situations, it will be the credibility and reliability of a witness’ recount that will determine the outcome of the case. Thus, the results posted below have been chosen, as they focus on cross-examinational skills, which are fundamental in any case that is witness-intensive or relies on viva voce testimony from people. This is how a trial lawyer ferrets out lies, or deconstructs a nonsensical story. Please note that every case is unique and will be decided on its own facts, and that past results are not necessarily indicative of future success.

R. v. S.M.
The accused was charged with a statutory sexual assault, that is, sexual assaulting a complainant under the age of 16. This part was admitted by the accused, and thus the trial began with a plea to partial facts. What was not admitted was whether the sexual activity was “forced.” This is an
important detail for sentencing, as elements of overt violence or coercion can serve to increase a sentence. In this case, the Crown had announced at the outset that they would be seeking a “dangerous offender” status for the accused, which would result in the imposition of an indeterminate sentence: life in jail. Thus, the facts supporting the conviction were extremely important, and a Gardiner hearing proceeded to determine what the facts were. The decision focusses on the cross-examination of the complainant by Mr. Lewandowski. The Judge indicated:

“T.P. was subjected to vigorous cross-examination for over two days at trial. Her evidence as to the material events was thoroughly undermined in ways that went far beyond mere inconsistencies on peripheral matters such as time and location. In general, her evidence was riddled with contradictions of a material nature.”

And further:

“I am simply unable to rely on T.P.’s evidence, nor am I able to reconcile the tangle of lies she told at trial with the allegations underpinning the charges to a criminal standard of proof”

This case is notable, as the result was based entirely on cross-examination of one witness, who required an extremely tactical cross-examination to separate what was truthful, from what was untruthful. In this case, Mr. Lewandowski was successfully on every single factual issue that was challenged.

R. v. G.A.
Accused was acquitted by a jury on a sexual assault of a disabled woman. Mr. Lewandowski was able to get the witness to admit that she “may” have made up the allegation. Upon acquittal, the accused then petitioned the City for reinstatement of his taxi licence, which was granted, and
then sued the licence committee for suspending him in the first place

R. v. J.H.
Client was acquitted of a robbery. The Crown case hinged upon the evidence of one witness, who was cross-examined extensively to pave the way for client’s testimony.

R. v. A.V.
Youth male client acquitted of a sexual assault of his then girlfriend. This case was a classic he-said-she-said and required extensive cross-examination.

R. v. E.R.
Adult male acquitted of a sexual assault of his then wife. This case involved an antagonistic dissolution of a twenty year marriage, where the complainant accused the client of perpetrating a massive insurance fraud over the course of a decade (client was acquitted of that too, in a
separate trial, with Mr. Lewandowski as counsel).