Salma Jaffer represents clients charged with a wide array of criminal offences.  For example:

 

  • Theft and Possession (under and over $5,000)

  • Fraud (including all fraud-related offences)

  • Mischief (under and over $5,000)

  • Assault (both domestic and non-domestic)

  • Uttering Threats (both domestic and non-domestic)

  • Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference , Indecent Act

  • Weapons offences (Firearms and other alleged Weapons)

  • Breaches of Court orders (such as Failing to Comply with Probation, Bail or Peace Bond terms)

  • Failure to Attend Court

  • Drug Offences (Possession, Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Production)

  • Driving Offences

  • All Youth matters

  • Manslaughter, Attempted Murder, Murder

  • Conspiracy 

 

 

Salma understands that taking on a client’s defence is a task most serious, and carries out each such task with integrity and skill.  Below are but a few breif summaries of some of the cases that she has taken on, and the results that she has obtained for her clients:

 

 

  • R. v. GW, 

GW was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.  It was alleged that he and three c0-accused men tried to rob a couple of their vehicle while the female victim was securing her infant into a car seat in the back of the vehicle.  Two of the accused men drove off with the vehicle with the infant still in the back of the vehicle.  After a trial that spanned just over two weeks in front of a jury, the jury returned a verdict of not-guilty on both counts. 

 

  • R. v. DS 

DS was charged with a number of offences in relation to his domestic partner, a woman with whom he tried to break up at the time of the alleged offences.  She alleged that he broke into her residence, wielded a knife at her, threatened her and stole a number of items from her residence before fleeing from the scene.  She provided a letter of apology to the police that he had sent her after the alleged offences.  The accused DS, denied these events and claimed that the letter of apology was not an admission of his guilt, but rather, his apology to her over ending their relationship.  The jury acquitted him of all of the offences. 

 

  • R. v. GS

GS was charged with sexual assault.  It was alleged that while working on a construction project in the complainant’s neighbourhood, that he made sexual advances toward her, and then later pulled her into an alleyway and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.  The complainant advised police that her sanitary napkin would still be at the scene.  The police located this item, and arrested GS for the sexual assault.  GS was acquitted by the jury, after hearing evidence from a defence witness who had not been interviewed by police, but who had made observations and heard words spoken by the complainant that challenged her account of the events of the night. 

 

  • R. v. MB

MB was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his five year old daughter.  His wife testified at trial that she walked into their apartment and caught the accused with his pants undone, in the dark, chasing their little girl around the house.  She claimed that her daughter had confirmed inappropriate touching by her father.  MB’s wife was cross examined about her animosity towards the accused, and about her belief that he had been sexually abusing their daughter for some time.  MB testified that he did not sexually assault his daughter, and that they were simply playing a childhood game that had long been a tradition in their home.  The presiding justice acquitted him of the charges. 

 

  • R. v. RY

RY was charged with attempted murder (and a host of other offences) against his wife, whom it was alleged he tried to throw over their balcony in a high-rise building.  Children and adults who had gathered in front of the building and watched the struggle on the balcony contacted police to report the crime.  They provided statements and then testified before the jury about their observations of RY trying to lift the woman over the rails, hearing her screams for help, and seeing violent acts such as her being struck with a belt.  RY testified in his defence and explained that the two were indeed arguing on the balcony.  He admitted a verbal dispute with his wife, and he admitted to striking her in the course of the argument, but denied all of the other conduct, including the attempt to throw her over the balcony.  He had pleaded guilty to one count of simple assault and not-guilty to the remaining counts on the indictment.  The jury acquitted him of all of the remaining charges, including the attempted murder. 

 

  • R. v. TS

TS was charged with various offences relating to possession of a firearm and drugs that were found pursuant to a search of a residence that was alleged to be his home.  Submissions were made to the judge following a preliminary inquiry that the firearm charges should not proceed before a jury because there would be no evidence upon which a jury could find him guilty of those offences.  The crown argued that there was sufficient evidence to proceed before the jury and that all charges should therefore remain.  The preliminary inquiry Justice found in favour of the defence and discharged TS on numerous counts relating to the firearms. 

 

 

Salma Jaffer Defence Lawyer