OUR CASES
Proven Results
At Montes Gendron Lawyers, we have successfully represented clients through complex trial litigation for over 25 years combined. Below is a selection of our reported cases.
B.N. v. S.L.
FAMILY LAW.
Our client was the Applicant in a 10 day family court trial. The case concerned the custody and parenting of the parties’ young son, child support, and the division of matrimonial property.
RESULT.
Our client was completely successful. Regarding her son, she was granted primary residence and parenting decision making. The opposing party was ordered to pay our client’s legal costs in the amount of $90,000.00.
R. v. A.S.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Assault. Our client was accused of a significant, prolonged domestic assault said to have taken place in the parking lot of an apartment complex. There were multiple witnesses to the incident and the entire event was captured on several video cameras.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. Our client's case did not proceed to trial on a timely basis. The court found 21.5 months of unreasonable delay, in breach of our client's right to a speedy trial. The delay was found to be unconstitutional and the charges were thrown out.
N.D. v. J.B.
FAMILY LAW.
Our client was the Respondent in an urgent case conference. The opposing party had refused to allow our client his in person and telephone parenting time with their child, contrary to their existing court order. The opposing party argued their actions were justified because they felt there was a risk of harm to the child and it was their duty to protect the child.
RESULT.
No circumstances were found that could have endangered the child. Parenting time could not be unilaterally refused. The opposing party was found in breach of the court order. Our client’s parenting time resumed according to the existing court order.
R. v. J.M. & S.M.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching. Our client was accused of sexually assaulting the complainant, a 15 year old girl, on two separate occasions. A significant amount of alcohol had been consumed by all parties before the alleged sexual assaults.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The complainant’s evidence that she did not consent to the sexual activity was neither credible nor reliable. The Crown was not able to prove the complainant lacked the capacity to consent and that our client did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain her age. Reasonable doubt established.
R. v. H.V.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Careless Driving Causing Death. Our client was driving on a highway when she crashed into a vehicle making a left turn. The driver of the other vehicle was killed in the collision. According to the police expert report, our client was travelling well over the speed limit at the time of the accident.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. There was no evidence in the police expert report that the collision could have been avoided had our client been travelling at the speed limit. Reasonable doubt established.
R. v. A.A.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Our client was accused of sexually assaulting the complainant, a minor, over a span of 4 years. It was also alleged that on one occasion, our client threatened to assault the complainant’s father if she ever told anyone about what was happening.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The complainant was unreliable and her testimony was contradicted by the other Crown witnesses. Reasonable doubt established.
R. v. A.S.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving. Police observed our client’s vehicle changing lanes without signaling. Upon further investigation at the roadside, officers noticed our client to have glossy eyes, slurred speech and an odour of alcohol on his breath. He failed a roadside breath test and was taken to the police station to provide further breath samples which registered over the legal limit.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The police breached our client’s rights by delaying the roadside breath test, and by handcuffing our client prior to his arrest. The breath test evidence was excluded from the trial.
R. v. D.B.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Assault. Our client was accused of assaulting a by-law enforcement officer. He was convicted at trial. We appealed the conviction.
RESULT.
Appeal Successful. The trial judge was mistaken in concluding that our client admitted to punching the by-law officer in the face during his trial testimony. The conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered.
R. v. D.D.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving. Our client was arrested after he crashed his vehicle on a busy highway. Police smelled alcohol on him and observed an empty bottle of alcohol on the ground close the vehicle. He was arrested and taken to provide breath samples which registered over the legal limit.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The police breached our client’s rights by not allowing him to speak to his lawyer of choice at the police station prior to providing his breath samples. The breath test evidence was excluded from the trial.
R. v. P.M.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving. Our client was accused of crashing his car into a roadside ditch and then running from the scene of the accident. The police chased him down, smelled an odour of alcohol on him and arrested him. He was taken to a local hospital due to injuries from the car accident. The police used blood samples taken at the hospital to try to prove that our client was driving while over the legal limit.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The police breached our client’s rights by not allowing him to have a private phone consultation with a lawyer while at the hospital, and by illegally taking his blood samples. The blood test evidence was excluded from the trial.
R. v. S.L.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving. After a brief roadside investigation, our client was arrested and taken to a police station to provide samples of her breath which registered over the legal limit.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. Our client’s case did not proceed to trial until 19 months after her arrest. This procedural delay breached our client’s right to a speedy trial. The delay was found to be unconstitutional and the charges were thrown out.
R. v. R.R.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Assault with a weapon. Our client was accused of hitting another young man in the head with a beer bottle during a parking lot brawl involving several other people. The individuals in the fight did not previously know each other.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. The Crown witnesses were not able to clearly identify our client as the person who used the beer bottle as a weapon. They were unable to identify our client in a photo line-up and they were inconsistent in their descriptions of the person who used the bottle. Reasonable doubt established.
R. v. P.P.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired Driving. Our client’s vehicle was stopped by police after they observed him changing lanes without signaling, speeding and weaving within his lane. He was arrested for impaired driving once the police noticed an odour of alcohol and saw him stagger when he stepped out of his car.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. There was a lack of solid evidence to determine that our client was impaired. He spoke with and interacted with the police normally and he did not appear impaired following his arrest while at the police station. Reasonable doubt established.
R. v. D.M.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired and Over 80 mgs Driving. Our client was pulled over for speeding. As a result of the police roadside investigation, a demand was made for our client’s breath samples. The breath test results indicated that our client’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was well over the legal limit.
RESULT.
Not Guilty. Our client’s case did not proceed to trial on a timely basis. The court found 12 months and 8 days of unreasonable delay, in breach of our client’s right to a speedy trial. The delay was found to be unconstitutional and the charges were thrown out.