Ash grew up mostly in Nepal, USA and Canada. During his undergraduate degree at the University of North Dakota / Minnesota State University, Ash worked with an insurance law litigation team for a multinational insurance company in the Midwestern United States.
After obtaining his Bachelor of Science degree, Ash worked for a cutting edge hi-tech and urban planning company in Boston, Massachusetts. Later, Ash took a year off from his work in Boston to travel in Asia and Europe before immigrating to Canada. Ash attended the University of Ottawa to study law.
Ash has practiced law in jurisdictions across Ontario and in Alberta since he was called to the bar in 2009.
Ash is passionate about litigation. He has appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Canada. He has also represented clients before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the Immigration Appeal Division, and other Canadian administrative tribunals.
As a criminal defence lawyer, Ash has defended persons charged with a wide range of offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He has also defended clients charged with violations of the Copyright Act, Income Tax Act, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and Customs Act. The criminal charges he has defended clients against include aggravated assault, sexual offences, impaired driving, domestic assault, mischief, fraud, and drug offences.
In his immigration law practice, Ash has appeared on behalf of clients at refugee hearings and appeals, deportation hearings, and other immigration appeals. Ash also has substantial experience in preparing immigration applications, including for spousal or family sponsorship, skilled worker immigration, permanent residence, and work permits. As an immigrant to Canada himself, Ash finds his immigration practice to be very fulfilling, and he is proud to have many former clients who are happily living and working in Canada.
In his family law practice, Ash has conducted trials and negotiated settlement agreements in high-conflict cases involving child custody, child access, child support payments, spousal support, property division, and many other contentious issues.
What has fueled the success of DUVADIE Law is Ash’s ability to establish strong personal bonds with his clients. Ash invests fully in pursuing the interests of his clients. His personal commitment to fearless advocacy and being attentive to his client’s needs provide the foundation for DUVADIE Law’s client-focused philosophy.
Ash is a member of the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Ottawa Carleton Defence Association and the County of Carleton Law Association. Ash is proudly multilingual and can communicate with clients in English, Nepalese, and Hindi. As a multilingual lawyer, Ash believes he has an obligation to assist members of the public who have difficulty interacting with Canada’s legal system because of a language barrier. This belief has led Ash to give regular public talks and other speaking engagements that aim to inform members of Ottawa’s immigrant communities of their legal rights.
When he is not running his busy law practice, Ash spends his time with his family and friends, who live along the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada. He is also an avid cyclist who enjoys family camping trips in Canada’s many national and provincial parks.
Criminal Law Results
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 stranger used a nearby construction pylon as a weapon. Following the altercation, the stranger 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 the 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 show that the stabbing was not 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 Restaurant
Facts: Following an anonymous tip, the Canada Border Services Agency investigated 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.
R v B.D.
Facts: B.D. and her family were worried that their sibling was in an abusive relationship. B.D. and her family travelled to Cornwall to persuade the sibling to return home. B.D. and her family removed their sibling from the home, escorted him/her to their vehicle, and drove home. The police were called, and a kidnapping was reported. B.D. and her family were charged with kidnapping and confinement. At trial, the statements of the sibling suggesting that he/she did not consent to entering the car were contradicted by testimony from other witnesses stating that the sibling appeared to enter the car consensually.
Outcome: B.D., and her family were acquitted on all charges.
R v Z.E.
Facts: Z.E. was walking in the Byward Market when a police officer approached him and questioned 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.
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.
If you are in need of legal assistance with a criminal, immigration, or family law related matter, please contact DUVADIE Law at 613-701-0505 or Toll-free at 1-855-422-1155 as soon as possible that we may being working on your behalf.
Page last updated Dec 3, 2025 @ 17:12
