Ottawa Legal Counsel

Our office is conveniently situated only two blocks from the Ottawa Courthouse, located at 161 Elgin Street. If you have been charged with committing a crime in Ottawa, or you are involved in a family law proceeding, your matter will be handled at this location. The Ottawa Courthouse is home to both the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Ottawa branch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Ottawa Courthouse is open 8:30 am – 5 pm on weekdays, and paid parking is available in the underground parking that is situated between the Courthouse and City Hall. For a map detailing all the paid parking spaces and municipal lots available, visit the City of Ottawa’s website. The Courthouse is one of a group of justice system facilities in Ontario that has security screening for all those who enter, so if you are set to appear in Court, be sure to leave enough time to account for possible delays.

If you would like more information about the courthouse, including the requirements to request interpreter services, courtroom layouts, and guides on how to prepare for court appearances, please consult the Justice Ontario website. If you have to appear in either the Ontario Court of Justice, or the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ministry of the Attorney General publishes daily court lists at 4:30 pm for the proceedings that will occur the following day. These lists are sometimes unreliable, as matters often get moved to other courtrooms on the day of the appearance. If you are required to appear at the courthouse, DUVADIE Law will ensure that you are informed of exactly where you need to be and at what time you need to be there (as soon as this information becomes available).

According to the crime data compiled by Maclean’s magazine, Ottawa ranks 144th in Canada on the Crime Severity Index (CSI), a measure which accounts for a combination of the severity and volume of reported crime that occurs within the jurisdiction. Although Ottawa’s overall CSI ranks below the national average, Ottawa’s reported crime rate in the following areas ranks above the national average: Homicide, Sexual Assault, Firearms Offences, and Fraud.

If you have been charged with any of these offences, and would like to obtain further information about them, please consult the following links:

• Murder and Manslaughter
• Sexual Assault
• Firearms Offences
• Fraud

For information on charges that occur in Ottawa with less frequency relative to the national average, please consult the links available here.

R v A.D.

Facts: A.D. was in the Byward Market when he got into an altercation with two strangers. During the fight, A.D. brandished a knife, and one of the strangers used a nearby construction pylon as a weapon. Following the altercation, one of the strangers was left with two stab wounds. A.D. was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace, and for breaching an undertaking not to possess a weapon. At trial, DUVADIE Law successfully persuaded the Judge that the Crown’s case lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the stabbing was intentional, and argued that the defence of self-defence applied because of the pylon attack.

Outcome: A.D. was acquitted of all charges.

R v Z.E.

Facts: Z.E. was walking in the Byward Market when a police officer approached him and began to question him about his whereabouts for the last hour. Z.E. was informed that he was under arrest, and he was later charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace. Z.E. matched a description provided to the police of a youth who was seen assaulting another person within a short distance of where Z.E. was found. Z.E.’s ethnicity and the colour of his clothes were similar to the described person, and after he was arrested, it was discovered that he was carrying a hose key in his pocket. At trial, DUVADIE Law argued that the Crown had not proven the identity of the person who committed the assault beyond a reasonable doubt. During cross-examination, DUVADIE Law unearthed inconsistencies in witness testimony that placed the accuracy of the description Z.E. was alleged to have met in doubt.

Outcome: Z.E. was acquitted of all charges.

R v Restaurant

Facts: Following an anonymous tip, the Canada Border Services Agency began to investigate a claim that a restaurant in Ottawa had employed an unauthorized foreign worker. A search warrant was obtained, and CBSA agents raided the restaurant, seizing the restaurant’s computers and all of their payroll and employee documents. The restaurant was charged under s. 124 (1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. During settlement negotiations, DUVADIE Law expressed an intention to argue that many of the seized documents be excluded on the basis that the CBSA agents had operated beyond the parameters permitted by the search warrant. This led to an offer of a favourable plea deal.

Outcome: Plea deal accepted, the Restaurant paid a small fine.

Note: The identities of the clients have been changed in the above case summaries in order to preserve solicitor-client confidentiality.

The above results were based on the unique factual circumstances of each case, and their similarity to your case does not guarantee a similar outcome.

Page last updated Apr 7, 2020 @ 22:41