Below is a sample of cases which Adam Goodman has acted on behalf of clients. For testimonials directly from clients, please see Adam's Google Places page here.
Criminal Cases
R. v. S.
Ontario Court of Justice - Peel Region
Mr. S. was facing several charges under the Customs Act for an allegation of failing to declare several thousand dollars of clothing to Canadian border officials at Pearson Airport. These charges carry criminal sanctions and are prosecuted in criminal court. Mr. S. retained Adam soon after he was charged and was represented at his first court appearance, which was scheduled three months after his arrest, which was unusual. Once the first appearance came around, disclosure was not provided. Ultimately, it took two additional months for disclosure to be provided. A trial date was eventually set in this matter. The first available date offered by the court was 7.5 months after the date it was scheduled.
Adam recognized that there was a possibility to make an argument for unreasonable delay. After filing an application and making oral argument, the Judge stayed all charges against Mr. S. as his rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.
R. v. A.
Ontario Court of Justice - York Region
Mr. A. immigrated to Canada with his family and settled on the East coast. The marriage began to breakdown and his wife and daughters moved to Ontario while Mr. A. stayed out east. Wanting to be with his family, Mr. A. came to Ontario and went to visit his daughters where a verbal altercation ensued with his wife. While Mr. A. left the home without incident, he was subsequently arrested for assault and uttering having allegedly pushed his wife and threatened her during the altercation. Mr. A. vehemently denied these allegations.
At trial, Adam cross-examined both Mr. A's wife and eldest daughter and was able to reveal various inconsistencies in the allegation. Adam also prepared Mr. A. to testify who took the stand and gave his side of the story. Result: not guilty of all charges.
R. v. S.
Ontario Court of Justice - Peel & Toronto
Mr. S., who was 19 years-old when first arrested, was arrested on three different sets of charges. The complainant on all charges was his girlfriend. After the third arrest the Crown sought his detention until trial which involved a bail hearing at Toronto's Old City Hall. Adam thoroughly prepared two sureties to testify and sought out programs in the community that could be of assistance to Mr. S. Result: bail granted.
Mr. S. was clearly involved in a problematic relationship. He did however explicitly deny any criminal wrongdoing in terms of assaults but did recognize that, in the cases of the second and third arrest, he was under a court order not to see his girlfriend. At first we explored the possibility of a global resolution. Given Mr. S's denial of wrongdoing it quickly became clear that this was not a viable option. Thus, three separate trial dates were set in two different jurisdictions.
The complainant did not appear for the first trial. The Judge allowed the Crown a small period of time to find the complainant. Upon returning to court, it was agreed that a peace bond would be the appropriate resolution. The complainant did appear for the second and third trials however in both it became clear to the court and the Crown that her evidence was not enough to support a conviction. There was no need for Mr. S. to testify, although he did take the stand at the second with respect to a breach of recognizance charge. While he was found guilty of the breach, the Judge agreed that a conditional discharge with lenient conditions was the proper sentence. Result: withdrawal of all charges and s. 810 peace bond (first trial); dismissal of assault charge & finding of guilt on breach charge (second trial); dismissal of all charges (third trial).
R. v. D.
Ontario Court of Justice - Peel
Mr. D., a young person, was charged with pointing an imitation firearm (a BB gun) at some passing motorists while in the passenger's seat of a vehicle being driven by his friend. Peel Police, concerned the weapon may be real, initiated a tactical takedown of all parties' in the vehicle when it arrived at its registered address. Mr. D. was found by police in the passenger's seat, the imitation firearm was recovered, and Mr. D.'s friends told police it was Mr. D. who pointed the BB gun. Needless to say, the Crown evidence was strong.
There was a triable issue with respect to identification of Mr. D. Upon thorough review, Adam and Mr. D. decided it was worthwhile to take this issue to trial. While the presiding Judge did find Mr. D. guilty, the ultimate sentence, one of deferred custody (essentially a custodial sentence served in the community and outside of a facility) was fair and appropriate and likely similar to what Mr. D. would have received had he entered a guilty plea. Mr. D. had a number of things going for him that led to this fair sentence, the most important being a youth with a positive background (adults would likely be facing at least a year in jail for a similar offence). Result: sentence of four months deferred custody.
Matters Before Administrative Boards & Tribunals
F. v. C.N.E.
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal - Toronto
C.N.E., an adventure cruise company, was alleged to have discriminated against a potential passenger who did not qualify for a promotion they were running. C.N.E. had always taken extra efforts to be inclusive of people from all walks of life., in fact the company's anti-discrimination policies went well beyond what was required by the Code. At the hearing, Adam was able to explain the business reasons why this potential passenger did not qualify for the discount and how such an exclusion did not violate any human rights laws whatsoever. Result: dismissal of action.
