Toronto Sexual Interference Lawyer

In the case of R. v. S.T. [2024], handled by the Firm, a school photographer was wrongfully accused of sexual assault, facing nine charges involving three child complainants. The allegations allegedly happend while the photographer was at the school. This high-profile case saw the Firm develop a comprehensive strategy, underpinned by concrete evidence. The police and prosecution overlooked crucial details in the video surveillance. The defence initiated two pre-trial motions, successfully requiring the employer of the accused to produce defence evidence. This evidence was critical for cross-referencing the data provided by law enforcement. After about 18 months court, including a trial, the Firm secured an acquittal on all charges, fully exonerating the accused.

In the Firm’s R. v. J.C. [2024], the Firm defended a historical sexual interference case from the 1980s. It was alleged that the client of the Firm was the babysitter of the complainant at the time who was a child. Over several decades the complainant came forward with the allegations to law enforcement. The accused was eventually charged and was now being prosecuted in his retirement. Over a year of litigation, the Firm discovered that the prosecution lost key evidence which resulted in a s.7 Charter defence. We were also able to confirm the accused was not read his rights to counsel, which means his statement was excluded from evidence. After proceeding to trial, the Firm was able to secure a withdrawal of all charges against the accused without any admission or consequences.

In 2021, the Firm represented an individual charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference in Toronto as well as one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference in British Columbia in R. v. V.G. [2021]. The accused was alleged to have sexually assaulted two different young complainants roughly 30 years ago. The Firm had the B.C. charges waived to Toronto and resolved the matter globally without any jail time for the accused. This represented one of the lowest sentences in Canada. The accused was initially facing 5-7 years in jail.

In 2019, Donich Law represented an individual charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching in Perth, Ontario in R. v. A.E. [2019]. The accused was alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with a family member while both individuals were children in 1985. The Firm litigated the matter for more than a year, ultimately proving that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in an attempt to gain control over a family inheritance. The defence was required to proceed to trial and conducted a contested application to vary the accused’s bail conditions. The Firm’s strategy eventually resulted in the Crown withdrawing all criminal charges.

In 2018, Donich Law represented an individual charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference in R. v. D.D. [2018]. The trial was held in youth court as the allegations dated back to more than 20 years prior when the accused was a young person. The Firm was able to show the complainant was inconsistent based on the evidence she gave in another proceeding, where a different family member was also simultaneously accused. The two trials with different family members proceeded together, where the Firm ultimately secured an acquittal at trial.

In 2018, Donich Law represented an individual charged with 11 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference in R. v. C.Z. [2018]. The charges were brought forward by multiple children. After months of litigation the Firm was able to raise suspicion about collusion between family members. Proceedings involving children are handle differently in the justice system, so care should be taken by defence during cross-examination. In some cases, child complainants will have to testify between a screen or in a separate room by video link. The Firm was eventually able to have 10 of the charges withdrawn.

In the Firm’s R. v. T.B. [2022], it secured a dismissal of all child sexual assault charges in Oshawa. The allegations were advanced by the son of the accused for an alleged incident that occurred in 1992, when the father was alone with his son. As with many historical sexual assault charges, they involved allegations of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. The defence was required to bring a complex s.276 application and was ultimately successful, utilizing evidence against the complainant at trial, specifically that he was once reported to the police for sexually assaulting another family member. This argument was combined with a section 11(b) Charter application for delay in getting to trial. At trial the defence was also able to prove the complainant’s memory was affected by years of drug abuse along with the theory that revenge was a motivating factor for fabricating the allegations. The defence was able establish through testimony by the ex-wife that a bitter divorce from 30 years ago pitted the biological mother and son, against the father.

In 2017, the Firm secured a withdrawal in its R. v. M.M. [2017], of sexual assault and sexual interference allegations after three years of litigation. The allegations dated back to 1977 when the complainant was five years old. The file proceeded to the Superior Court where the Firm conducted a preliminary inquiry at the time. The Firm was able to extract evidence from the complainant regarding her alleged therapy. This information was then used by the defence as the basis for a third party records application to review the therapy notes. With the developments that followed, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

In 2025, the Firm represented an individual charged with several child sexual abuse offences including make available sexual material to a child, luring a child, making child pornography, possessing child pornography, accessing child pornography, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault and sexual interference in the R. v. V.D. [2025]. The client was charged after engaging in an inappropriate relationship with an individual under the age of 18 which including exchanging inappropriate text messages and media content. The accused was in a position of trust and authority over the complainant when they met, further aggravating the situation. The accused was arrested after the mother of the complainant discovered the relationship and reported it to law enforcement. The Firm litigated the matter for more than two years, ultimately having six of the charges against the client withdrawn.