Category: Articles

Fail to Appear

Legal Help for a Fail to Appear Charge in Toronto

November 13, 2026

Missing a scheduled Court date can quickly change the course of a criminal case. When a person released on paperwork or bail does not attend as required, police may lay a Fail to Appear charge under the Criminal Code, and a judge may issue a warrant for their arrest. We help people in Toronto, the GTA and southern Ontario respond to missed appearances with a clear plan, so a single mistake does not define the rest of their case.

Why a Missed Appearance Is Taken Seriously

Most people charged with a criminal offence are released while their case moves forward. That release depends on a simple promise to attend Court on the dates required. When that promise is broken, the Court may question whether the person can be trusted to appear in the future, and the Crown often adds a new charge to the existing file.

The consequences can reach well beyond the missed date itself. A bench warrant may remain active until it is dealt with, and an arrest can happen during a traffic stop, at a border crossing or at home. If the person is later held for a bail hearing, a history of missed appearances can make release harder to obtain. In many cases, the burden shifts to the accused to show why release is appropriate, rather than the Crown having to justify detention.

Most missed dates are not deliberate. We see many people who got confusing paperwork, were not notified of an adjournment, or suffered an unexpected illness, family emergency, or similar event. These details matter because the Crown must prove more than an absence from the courtroom. 

How We Approach These Cases

John Erickson has been a senior criminal lawyer and former Crown Prosecutor in Toronto since 1997. That background gives us insight into how the Crown reviews administration of justice charges and where opportunities may exist to resolve them. Every file starts with an examination of the release documents, Court records and the reasons for the missed date. 

When we take on a Fail to Appear matter, our work often includes:

• Confirming whether a warrant has been issued and what it covers

• Reviewing the release paperwork for errors or unclear dates

• Gathering records that may support a lawful excuse, such as medical notes

• Arranging a planned attendance to address an outstanding warrant

• Preparing for a bail hearing, including a release plan or surety if needed

Dealing with a warrant on your own terms is usually far better than waiting to be arrested. Attending with counsel and a plan in place shows the Court you’re taking the matter seriously. Where the circumstances support it, we may also be able to discuss with the Crown whether the new charge should proceed at all, or whether the matter can be resolved in a way that limits its impact on the original case.

Protecting Your Position Going Forward

A missed appearance is almost always connected to another charge, whether it involves assault, theft, drugs, impaired driving or another criminal matter. We defend both together, so that the strategy for one supports the other. This also lets us look for a resolution that makes sense for the entire case, rather than treating each charge in isolation.

We also help clients avoid future problems. In many matters, a defence lawyer can appear on the client’s behalf for certain routine dates through a designation of counsel. We track upcoming appearances and confirm Court details, so clients know exactly when they must attend in person. These practical steps can reduce stress and help prevent another missed date.

Our fees are set on a block fee basis where feasible rather than open-ended hourly billing, and payment plans are available. Your first consultation is free. Discussing your situation with us will give you the chance to understand your options and make decisions without any obligations.  Every case depends on its facts, and early advice leaves more options open.

Acting quickly can make a meaningful difference in how your case moves forward. Contact us if you missed a Court date, have an outstanding warrant, or were charged after a missed appearance.

Voyeurism Lawyer in Toronto

November 2, 2026

Voyeurism is a relatively modern offence, added to the Criminal Code in 2005, and allegations have climbed sharply with the spread of smartphones and small recording devices. It covers a range of conduct, from observing a person without their knowledge to making a secret recording in a setting where privacy is expected. Anyone accused of voyeurism in Toronto or the surrounding region should understand that it is treated as a sexual offence, which carries consequences that reach well beyond the sentence itself, and that the Crown has to prove several specific things before a conviction can follow.

What the Offence Involves

The offence is set out in section 162 of the Criminal Code. To convict, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused surreptitiously observed or made a visual recording of another person, that the person was in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that one of three statutory conditions applied. Those conditions are that the person was in a place where nudity or sexual activity could reasonably be expected; that the person was nude or engaged in sexual activity and the observation or recording was for the purpose of capturing that; or that the observation or recording was done for a sexual purpose.

Much of the argument in these cases turns on the reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that this is a contextual question, assessed on the totality of the circumstances, and that being in a public or semi-public place does not automatically remove the expectation of privacy. Courts weigh factors such as the location, whether the conduct was observation or a recording, whether the person was aware of or consented to it, the manner in which it was done, the subject matter, any applicable rules, and the relationship between the people involved. The Criminal Code also makes it a separate offence to distribute, publish, or sell a recording knowing it was obtained through voyeurism, carrying the same penalties even for someone who did not make the original recording.

Penalties and Consequences

Voyeurism is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. On indictment, the maximum is five years in prison, and on summary conviction the maximum is two years less a day and a fine. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. Because it is classified as a sexual offence, a conviction can also lead to an order requiring registration under the national sex offender registry. The consequences of a conviction extend well past any sentence:

  • A permanent criminal record, treated as a sexual offence on background checks.
  • Possible registration as a sex offender, with ongoing reporting obligations.
  • Serious effects on employment, especially in positions of trust or involving vulnerable people.
  • Immigration consequences for non-citizens, and difficulty travelling.

Because of the registry and reputational consequences, the stakes in a voyeurism case are often higher than the length of any sentence would suggest, which is why the defence of these charges is so important.

How These Charges Are Defended

Voyeurism charges frequently turn on legal and factual questions that are open to challenge, since the Crown must prove every element. Two issues recur: whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, where the charge depends on it, whether the act was done for a sexual purpose. On the first, if the complainant was in a setting where no reasonable expectation of privacy existed, an essential element is missing, and courts have recognised that some open or public settings do not give rise to that expectation. On the second, where the charge rests on a sexual purpose, the defence will test whether the Crown can actually prove that purpose rather than an innocent or unrelated reason for the observation or recording.

Other questions can be decisive. Whether the conduct was truly surreptitious, whether the person was aware of or consented to it, and whether the identity of the accused is established can all be in issue. Because these cases often involve phones, cameras, and computers, the way devices were searched and seized matters as well, and where a search breached the Charter, an application can be brought to exclude the resulting evidence, which is often the centre of the Crown’s case.

A voyeurism charge carries consequences that reach far beyond any sentence, including the prospect of being placed on a sex offender registry and a lasting effect on a person’s reputation and work. The law, though, requires the Crown to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy and, in many cases, a sexual purpose, and both can be tested closely on the facts and the evidence. Anyone facing a voyeurism charge in Toronto or the GTA should speak with a criminal defence lawyer promptly, before bail conditions harden and court deadlines pass, so the disclosure can be reviewed, the lawfulness of any device search assessed, and the strongest available path forward identified.

Legislation and Jurisprudence

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10.

Fail to Comply with Bail Lawyer in Toronto

October 13, 2026

A bail breach is one of the most frequently laid charges in the Greater Toronto Area, and it can arise from something as ordinary as missing a curfew, contacting someone a release order prohibits, failing to report as required, or not showing up to court. These are known as administration of justice offences, because they concern a person’s conduct while already in the court system rather than the original allegation. Anyone accused of a fail to comply with bail charge in Toronto or the surrounding region should understand that a breach is treated as a fresh criminal charge in its own right, and that what the Crown must prove is narrower than many people expect.

What the Offence Involves

Failing to comply with a release order is an offence under section 145 of the Criminal Code. To convict, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was bound by a condition or required to attend court, that they failed to do so, and that they did so without lawful excuse. Establishing the bare fact of a breach, though, is not enough on its own.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that this offence requires subjective fault. The Crown must prove that the accused knew of the conditions, or was wilfully blind to them, and then either knowingly failed to comply or was reckless, meaning they were aware of a substantial and unjustified risk that their conduct would breach a condition and went ahead anyway. It is not enough to show that a reasonable person in the same position would have complied; the focus is on what this accused actually knew and intended. The same decision stressed that bail conditions are meant to be minimal, necessary, reasonable, and capable of being obeyed, not imposed by rote, so a condition a person could not realistically meet, or that was never clearly communicated, can be central to whether a breach was truly knowing or reckless.

Penalties and Consequences

Failing to comply is a hybrid offence. On indictment, the maximum is two years in prison, and on summary conviction the maximum is two years less a day. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. The more pressing consequences, however, are often immediate and practical:

  • The original charge still proceeds, so the person faces two matters instead of one.
  • A breach can lead to the existing bail being revoked and the person held in custody.
  • A record of breaches makes it harder to obtain bail in the future.
  • A conviction creates a criminal record, with the usual effects on employment, travel, and immigration.

This is part of why bail breaches have drawn criticism for pulling people into a cycle of charges and custody, sometimes for conduct that harmed no one. A person can even be acquitted of the charge that put them on bail and still be convicted, or held in custody, for a breach that happened while they were awaiting trial.

How These Charges Are Defended

Because the offence requires subjective fault, many breach charges are more defensible than they first appear. The central questions are whether the accused genuinely knew of the condition and whether the failure to comply was knowing or reckless, rather than accidental or beyond their control. A lawful excuse can answer the charge, and so can circumstances that show the breach was not knowing or reckless, such as a condition that was misunderstood, a situation the accused could not control, or a genuine inability to comply. The case that settled the law on this point involved a person who could not hear officers at his door, which shows how ordinary circumstances can negate the required fault.

There is also a route that can keep a breach out of the criminal stream entirely. For administrative breaches that did not cause harm to a victim, a judicial referral hearing can deal with the matter without a prosecution, focusing on whether the conditions themselves should be adjusted, and unworkable conditions can sometimes be varied. A lawyer reviewing a breach charge will look at whether the accused actually knew of the condition, whether any failure was knowing or reckless, whether a lawful excuse applies, and whether the condition was reasonable and clearly communicated in the first place.

A bail breach can add a second charge to a case that has not yet been decided, and it can cost a person their liberty before any finding of guilt on the original allegation. Anyone charged with failing to comply with bail in Toronto or the GTA should speak with a criminal defence lawyer promptly, since a breach affects both the new charge and the case underneath it. Acting early allows the conditions and the alleged breach to be reviewed, the right defence or resolution to be identified, and any unworkable conditions to be addressed before they cause further problems.

Legislation and Jurisprudence

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14.

Shoplifting Lawyer in Toronto

October 5, 2026

Shoplifting is one of the most common charges laid in the Greater Toronto Area, and while it can feel like a minor matter, the Criminal Code treats it as theft. Most cases involve merchandise worth $5,000 or less, which falls under the theft under $5,000 provision. People are often surprised to learn that a momentary lapse at a store can become a criminal offence that, on conviction, leaves a permanent record affecting employment, travel, and immigration status. Anyone accused of shoplifting in Toronto or the surrounding region should understand what the Crown has to prove and why a charge does not have to end in a criminal record.

What the Offence Involves

Theft is defined in section 322 of the Criminal Code, and the punishment for theft of property valued at $5,000 or less is set out in section 334. To convict, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took or converted property without paying, and did so with the intent to deprive the store of it, even temporarily. Both the act and the dishonest intent have to be established.

The offence is complete earlier than most people assume. Theft occurs as soon as a person, with the intent to steal, moves the goods or begins to move them. In a store, that means concealing an item, placing it in a bag, or moving it toward an exit with the intent to avoid paying can satisfy the offence, even if security stops the person before they reach the door. Two points often shape these cases. First, an honest belief in a right to the property, known as a colour of right, can negate the offence, which is why genuine confusion at a self-checkout or over whether an item was paid for can matter. Second, related charges sometimes follow, such as fraud where a price tag was switched, or possession of property obtained by crime.

Penalties and Consequences

Theft of property valued at $5,000 or less is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. On indictment, the maximum is two years in prison, and on summary conviction the maximum is two years less a day and a fine of up to $5,000. There is no mandatory minimum, and for a first offence a jail term is uncommon. The more lasting concern is usually the record itself:

  • A criminal record, visible on background checks and treated as a crime of dishonesty.
  • Immigration consequences for non-citizens, since theft can affect status and applications.
  • Difficulty travelling, particularly to the United States.
  • Barriers to employment, professional licensing, and volunteer positions.

Because this is among the least serious theft offences, there are often ways to resolve it without a conviction. Diversion or alternative measures, where the charge is withdrawn after the person completes certain conditions, may be available, especially for a first offence. A court may also grant an absolute or conditional discharge, which is a finding of guilt without a registered conviction.

How These Charges Are Defended

Despite the perception that being caught on camera ends the matter, shoplifting charges are often defensible, and many are resolved without a record. The Crown must prove not just that an item left the store unpaid for, but that the accused intended to steal it. Intent is frequently the key. Someone who genuinely forgot an item in a cart, was distracted, or became confused at a self-checkout may lack the dishonest intent the offence requires, and an honest belief that an item had been paid for can be a complete answer to the charge.

How the case was built matters too. The defence will look at the reliability of the loss-prevention evidence and any video, whether the identity of the accused is clearly established, and whether the way the person was detained and questioned by store security or police respected their rights. Statements made after a detention, and the manner of any citizen’s arrest, can become important points. Where the facts allow, the focus often shifts to securing a resolution that avoids a conviction, whether through diversion, a discharge, or a withdrawal of the charge.

A shoplifting charge can feel out of proportion to what happened, but the consequences of a conviction are real and reach into employment, travel, and immigration. Anyone facing a shoplifting or theft charge in Toronto or the GTA should speak with a criminal defence lawyer who can review the evidence, assess whether the Crown can prove intent, and pursue the outcome that best protects their record. Acting early, before a first court date, often opens up the widest range of options.

Legislation and Jurisprudence

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

 

Criminal Appeals Lawyer in Toronto

September 16, 2026

A conviction or a sentence handed down at trial is not always the last word. Where something went wrong in the process, a higher court can review what happened and, in the right case, correct it. An appeal is not a second trial, though, and that distinction matters: the appeal court does not hear witnesses again or reweigh the evidence from scratch, but instead examines the trial record to decide whether an error occurred that warrants intervention. For anyone considering criminal appeals in Toronto or across the Greater Toronto Area, understanding how the process works, and how little time there is to start one, can be the difference between preserving the right to appeal and losing it altogether.

How Appeals Work in Ontario

The route an appeal takes depends on how the offence was prosecuted. Summary conviction matters, the less serious offences, are appealed to the Superior Court of Justice and heard by a single judge. Indictable matters go to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, usually before a panel of three judges. In limited circumstances a further appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada, generally only with that court’s permission. Both an accused and the Crown can appeal, although the Crown’s rights are narrower, and an accused may appeal a conviction, a sentence, or both.

An appeal proceeds on the written record of the trial, namely the transcripts, the exhibits, and the trial judge’s rulings and reasons. The appellant prepares written arguments, called a factum, and the case is decided after oral argument rather than fresh testimony. Because the court is reviewing for error rather than starting over, the way a case was run at trial shapes what can be argued later. Timelines are also strict. A notice of appeal must generally be filed within thirty days of sentencing, and while extensions can be sought, they require a separate motion and a reasonable explanation. The safest course is to file the notice in time, even a simple one, and refine the grounds with counsel afterward.

The Grounds That Matter

An appeal must rest on a recognised ground, not simply disagreement with the result. For a conviction, an appeal court can intervene in three situations:

  • The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.
  • The trial judge made a wrong decision on a question of law.
  • On any ground, there was a miscarriage of justice.

Each has its own threshold. A verdict is unreasonable only where no properly instructed jury or judge, acting judicially, could reasonably have reached it on the evidence. Errors of law can include improper jury instructions, the wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, or a misapprehension of evidence that played an essential role in the reasoning, while a miscarriage of justice can arise in many ways, including the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In exceptional cases, fresh evidence may be admitted, but only where it could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence, is relevant and believable, and could reasonably have affected the result. Sentence appeals face a deferential standard: a court will not vary a sentence just because it would have imposed a different one, and will step in only where the sentence is demonstrably unfit or reflects an error in principle that affected it.

What to Expect and Why Acting Early Matters

Once a notice of appeal is filed, the case moves through several steps, including ordering transcripts, assembling the appeal materials, and exchanging written arguments before the hearing. Where an accused has been sentenced to custody and is appealing, it may be possible to apply for release on bail pending appeal, which requires showing that the appeal is not frivolous, that the applicant will surrender as required, and that release is not contrary to the public interest. After the hearing, the court may dismiss the appeal, order a new trial, set aside a conviction and enter an acquittal, or vary the sentence, reducing it or in some cases increasing it.

Because the right to appeal is time-limited, and because the strength of an appeal turns on a careful reading of the trial record, the earlier the process begins, the better. Reviewing transcripts and reasons takes time, and the single most important first step is preserving the right to appeal within the deadline. Anyone considering an appeal in Toronto or the GTA should speak with a criminal defence lawyer as soon as possible after a conviction or sentence, so the record can be reviewed, the available grounds assessed, and the right to appeal protected before time runs out.

Legislation and Jurisprudence

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
R v Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15.
R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64.
Palmer v The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 759.

123Next ›Last »
NEED HELP?
close slider

    How Can I Help You?

    Let me know what is your situation or concerns and I will reply back promptly. If this is urgent call 24/7 (416) 363-3612.












    Skip to content