cases
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.
Criminal Cases
Family Cases
R. v. M.C. 2024
CRIMINAL LAW.
Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample. Police observed our client's vehicle mounting a curb after driving away from a bar. Following a fail on a roadside breath test using an approved screening device, our client was arrested and brought to the police station to provide further breath samples. After repeated failed attempts, the police charged our client with refusing to provide breath samples.
R. v. A.S. 2023
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.
R. v. H.V. 2022
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.
R. v. J.M. & S.M. 2020
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. A.A. 2020
CRIMINAL LAW.
Sexual Interference. 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.
R. v. A.S. 2019
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.
R. v. D.B. 2018
CRIMINAL LAW.
Assault. Our client was accused of assaulting a by-law enforcement officer. He was convicted at trial. We appealed the conviction.
R. v. D.D. 2016
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.
R. v. P.M. 2014
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.
R. v. S.L. 2011
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.
R. v. R.R. 2010
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. 2010
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.
K.M. v. M.M. 2024
FAMILY LAW.
Our client was the Respondent Father who commenced a motion to change a final court order. The Applicant relocated with the children over three hours away from the previous family residence after the final order. This caused the parenting schedules and child support for the children to change, requiring a new court order.
M.A.J. v. C.J.P. 2024
FAMILY LAW.
Our client was the Applicant Mother responding to a Motion to Change brought by the Respondent Father. The case involved parenting, relocation, and child support. The case proceeded to a four day trial.
B.N. v. S.L. 2023
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.
N.D. v. J.B. 2022
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.