Our criminal defence lawyers will use their extensive knowledge and experience to protect your rights and liberties. We have the expertise to defend any case in any criminal court.
We offer assistance in English, French, Polish, Ukrainian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Romanian.
Contact Us
If you or someone you know requires legal representation, contact us today for a free, no obligation consultation.
We accept credit cards, offer flexible payment plans, and accept Legal Aid for certain matters.
Kaldas Law is a criminal law firm dedicated exclusively to protecting your rights and freedoms, including professional legal services in defence of all charges.
We are located in Toronto, Canada, and offer services within the Ontario region.
Contact us now to find out how we can be of service to you.
Emergency?
In case of emergency, please call us collect any time at 416.767.0143 or TOLL FREE at 1 (844) 9-KALDAS, or 1 (844) 952-5327
Types of Charges
We represent Clients in all types of charges, including Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter, Assault, Domestic Assault & Violence, Drug Possession, Trafficking & Importing, Aboriginal Law, Sexual Assault & Other Sexual Offences, Criminal Harassment, Major Fraud & Theft, Shoplifting, Robbery, Uttering Threats, Threatening Bodily Harm, Youth & Crime, Young Offender, and more.
Bail Hearings & Bail Reviews
Every day innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, or that the government probably can’t prove, just to get out of jail. Other innocent people who win their trials can never get back the time they spent in jail waiting for trial.
We can prepare you and your sureties with everything you need to know to have your best chance of getting bail.
Pre-trial, Trials & Appeals
We have won many cases involving all types of charges. Allow us to represent you in your court appearances, trial and appeals, and to defend your rights when you most need them.
Our expertise, courage and determination can be utilised in all legal situations.
Kaldas Law understands that our community is multi-language, and offers assistance in English, French, Polish, Ukrainian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Romanian.
We are here to support you.
About
OUR LEGAL DEFENcE TEAM
Years of training & experience
The kind of expertise that can only be gained in the field.
Determination
We fight for your legal rights when you most need them.
Strategic Legal Defence
We rely on sound legal strategy for your defence.
Our Expertise
Kaldas Law is experienced in all areas of legal defence.
We are a legal team that truly believes in defending adults and youth charged with all types of crimes — at trials, appeals and bail hearings.
As established Toronto Criminal Lawyers, we run our practice in accordance to the following principles:
We represent the interests of our Clients with respect and distinction.
We are fearless and determined about advocating on their behalf, regardless of type of criminal charge.
We utilize strategy and timing to present evidence and facts that illustrate innocence and possible police oversight to the benefit of our Clients.
We will be in your corner when you need us most.
Our Difference
Our team is determined to create the best outcomes for our Clients, and we do so by building working relationships with the people we represent – so they know they can trust us to advocate for them – fearlessly and with distinction.
We understand that facing a criminal charge can be a stressful situation, which is why we approach each client with respect, focus and preparedness.
We are available to our Clients, and will present you passionately and powerfully; with care and concern for your options and wishes.
Testimonials.
FEEDBACK FROM OUR CLIENTS
John, did anyone ever tell you how amazing you are? Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for every single thing you’ve done for me. Much love and blessings.
A. C.
]I just want to thank you and your family for fighting on my behalf the way that you did. May the Lord bless you, protect you and guide you and all of your family in everything that you do. Please do not alllow anybody to change you. I have also learned a lesson from you. Thank you very much for everything. With much love,
R. S.
I’m a client and friend of the best attorneys in the GTA. All I would like to say is that if you or anybody you know ever runs into trouble with the law, the only lawyer to call is John Kaldas. I am not proud of my past but in my experience with other lawyers, Mr. Kaldas and his associates are the only ones I would like to have behind me at court. John Kaldas fights for what’s right, not the pay. In my books he is number one. John Kaldas ans his associates also treat you like a human being, which makes things much easier to cope with when going in front of the courts. To make a long story short, John Kaldas is the one to choose for an excellent defence!
S. M.
I am writing to inform you that I am truly satisfied with you outstanding performance and great devotion to my legal matters in court. You showed extreme dedication to me and your profession through your care and friendship. If there is anyone along my travels in need of a great lawyer you can be certain of my proud referral of your services. Thank You!
W. T.
Thank you very much Mr. Kaldas. I appreciate everything you’ve done and taking the time out of your day to always answer my questions. If it wasn’t for your services I honestly am not sure where I would be. I will be sure to recommend you if I know anyone that has gotten themselves into a problem. I wish you all the best and take care, until our paths cross once again, hopefully in a positive way. Your wholse service is a 10 star in my books. Once again thank you Mr. Kaldas!
C. I.
You’re truly an exceptional lawyer. Thank you for all you’ve done for me!1 It has been an honour working with you!
S. M.
Thank you very much,you guys are great and did an amazing job! I love you, thank you homeboy. Thanks for being in my corner when I was down and needed you. What more can I say? Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
R. O.
Yo man, you guys are off the hook! You’re f****** awesome! Thanks for everything man!
R. v. Chris S. This man was charged with first degree murder in relation to a high-profile shooting and had his charge DISMISSED at the end of the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. John M. This young man charged with murder relating to shooting in area of Keele and Eglinton area had his charge WITHDRAWN after picking a jury to begin his trial.
R. v. Jason M. This man, alleged to have killed someone with a golf club was found NOT GUILTY of murder following a jury trial.
R. v. Janos M. Charged with the murder of a man found dead in his bathtub, found NOT GUILTY after trial by judge alone.
R. v. Matthew M. This young man was charged as part of a double-homicide and attempt murder. Following significant negotiations, all his charges were WITHDRAWN at the outset of the preliminary inquiry
R. v. Isaac K. Appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal of sentence in relation to a homicide that occurred during a home invasion robbery. Sentence reduced on appeal from 10 to 7 years (effectively TIME-SERVED). Our firm acted only on the appeal.
R. v. William O. Charged with murder relating to a stabbing that happened in front of dozens of people, we negotiated a plea bargain for W.O. for a plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter, and a short sentence.
R. v. Kandie S. Charged with murder, we negotiated a plea bargain for K.S. for a plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter, and a short sentence.
R. v. Soen T. This client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a member of his family. Following lengthy negotiations this matter was resolved on a favourable plea to a lesser charge of Second Degree Murder.
Fraud
R. v. K.A. This young woman was charged as part of a complex inter-provincial fraud of over $50,000. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. C.I. Charged with a number of frauds involving a number of banks and false identities. All charges WITHDRAWN on the first day of trial.
Kidnapping/Forcible Confinement
R. v. C.B. This client was charged with kidnapping and forcibly confining and individual over a number of days with repeated beatings and robberies. Client found NOT GUILTY after trial.
Sexual Assault
R. v. K.B. This man was believed by the police to be a drug dealer who beat up and forced someone to perform sexual acts. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. P.J.C. A young man charged with allegedly drugging the complainant and forcing intercourse. The charge was WITHDRAWN before trial.
R. v. M.M. This man was charged with a serious sexual assault which actually occurred at the invitation of the alleged complainant. After obtaining electronic evidence and providing it to the crown the charge was WITHDRAWN.
R. v. J.F. This young person was charged with sexual assault and uttering threats involving his girlfriend. All his charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. A.P. This young person was charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year old with a gun and filming it on his cell phone. All charges DISMISSED at trial.
R. v. J.B. This client was charged with a sexual assault during Caribana 2015. All charges were DISMISSED at the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. A.P. This young person was charged with a serious sexual assault involving using drugs to incapacitate the victim. All sexual assault and drug charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. G.N. Charged with a serious historical sexual assault against a young boy, the client was found NOT GUILTY following a six-day trial.
R. v. C.V. Charged with a “date rape” he was found NOT GUILTY by a jury.
R. v. G.A. Charged with a serious sexual assault of a person he met through the internet. The client was found NOT GUILTY following a superior court trial.
R. v. W.E. This young man accused of sexually abusing a young child was found NOT GUILTY after trial.
R. v. A.A. Charged with sexual assault, a very forceful cross examination at the preliminary inquiry clearly demonstrated the so-called victim was a complete liar and the charge was WITHDRAWN.
R. v. W.O. Charged with sexual assault, a very forceful cross examination at the preliminary inquiry clearly demonstrated the so-called victim was a complete liar and the charge was WITHDRAWN.
R. v. R.J. Charged with sexually abusing his daughter and step-daughter, found NOT GUILTY after trial.
R. v. D.W. Charged with sexual assault of a woman living in his building, all charges WITHDRAWN.
Aggravated Assault
R. v. C.C. This woman was alleged to have stabbed someone in a fit of rage. Her charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. E.F. This grandmother was charged with extremely serious assaults on her grandchildren, which resulted in numerous injuries including a skull fracture. Client was found NOT GUILTY following a trial in Superior Court.
R. v. F.M. This young lady was charged with stabbing her fiance during a fight in front of one of her neighbours. Due to very effective cross-examinations she was found NOT GUILTY at trial in the Superior Court.
R. v. W.T. Charged with beating a man using a metal bar during a fight in a parking lot. All charges WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R. v. S.M. Charged with stabbing someone five times in the back. All charges WITHDRAWN after explaining valid self-defence argument to the prosecutor and pre-trial judge.
R. v. J.M. Charged with smashing a bar over someone’s head, causing serious injuries Crown invited verdict of NOT GUILTY during my cross-examination of the so-called victim.
R. v. A.P. Charged with stabbing the victim in the neck. Following a detailed review of the evidence, charge WITHDRAWN.
R. v. N.P. Charged with a very serious assault which tragically left the victim permanently brain damaged, his charges were DISMISSED after the preliminary inquiry.
Attempt Murder
R. v. Sylvester T. Charged with trying to murder his wife and daughter, he was found NOT GUILTY of attempt murder by a jury.
R. v. Kofi B. This client was charged with attempting to kill the victim in the course of a serious stabbing with a knife. All charges STAYED at the preliminary inquiry.
Drugs
R. v. K.C. This woman was charged with possession of over 100 grams of fentanyl, 25 grams of heroin, 220 grams of cocaine and a dozens of rounds of ammunition. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. M.C. This client was charged with possession of 3.5 grams of fentanyl and $3500 proceeds of crime. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. A.S. A young man was found driving a car with a significant amount of drugs. Upon giving notice of a Charter application to exclude the evidence, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. S.G. This individual suffered from a significant drug addiction and found himself charged with possession for the purpose of fentanyl. Following significant negotiations, all charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. A.F. Charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of over $10,000.00 cash alleged proceeds of crime. All charges WITHDRAWN due to an illegal search. Client had his cash returned to him.
R. v. C.B. This client was found with several kilograms of cocaine dissolved in duty-free alcohol. He was found NOT GUILTY following a trial in superior court.
R. v. T.B. This mother of three young children was facing up to 8 years in jail in relation to drugs found with her at Pearson Airport. She was found NOT GUILTY following a Superior Court Trial.
R. v. S.R. Arrested during a drug raid, he was alleged to be in possession of thousands of dollars in cash and a large quantity of drugs. All charges withdrawn
R. v. R.C. This young man was charged with possessing a large amount of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking. After the preliminary inquiry all charges were DISMISSED. He also had serious drug charges in another jurisdiction which were WITHDRAWN also.
R. v. J.W. This woman was charged with importing a large amount of cocaine concealed in body packs. She was potentially facing several years in jail. All charges were STAYED because her right to a speedy trial under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.
R. v. S.L. This person was charged with trafficking drugs and with possessing a large amount of her drugs at home. All charges were DISMISSED following the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. R.Y. This young mother was charged with importing cocaine and marihuana after lots of drugs were found in her luggage. She was found NOT GUILTY following a jury trial.
R. v. J.A. This woman was charged with trafficking oxycodone, her charge was WITHDRAWN at the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. K.S. This person was found with a kilogram of cocaine in his baggage at Pearson Airport. He was found NOT GUILTY following a jury trial.
R. v. R.A.S. Drugs were found in this lady’s suitcase when she landed at Pearson Airport. She was found NOT GUILTY following a jury trial.
R. v. C.M. Client was charged with possession of a large amount of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and with possession of a firearm. All charges were DISMISSED at the end of the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. S.M. This young lady was charged with possession of a large amount of drugs following a drug bust. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. S.C. Client charged with possessing a large amount of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. After the cross-examination of the police officers at the preliminary inquiry demonstrated the arrest was illegal, all charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. S.L. Client was charged with trafficking cocaine, and possession of a large amount of drugs found in her home when a search warrant was executed. All charges DISMISSED at the preliminary inquiry because the crown could not prove continuity for the trafficking charge, or possession for the drugs in the home.
R. v. L.R. Client accused of possessing a very large amount of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and over $20,000.00 proceeds of crime. The police entered his home with a search warrant. All charges DISMISSED at the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. J.H. Client charged with trafficking heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking. A search warrant was executed on her home and drugs found. All charges DISMISSED after the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. J.M. Client stopped illegally and subjected to an unlawful search. Brought an application to exclude all evidence and charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. S.M. Police entered client’s apartment with a search warrant and charged him with possession of a significant amount of drugs. Charges DISMISSED after the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. A.H. Charged with possession of a very large quantity of drugs, the evidence was excluded after a successful Charter application and he was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v. D.T. Charged with importing a large amount of cocaine in his suitcase when flying in to Canada, he was found NOT GUILTY following a jury trial.
R. v. M.M. Swept up in a massive drug bust, We got all of her chargesWITHDRAWN. R. v. A.A. All charges WITHDRAWN during preliminary inquiry.
R. v. D.B. Charged with a number of serious drug charges following a lengthy investigation, all charges DISMISSED after the preliminary inquiry. The police were also required to return $25,000.00 in alleged drug money to the defendant.
Impaired/Over 80
R. v. R.C. Client was a young woman with no criminal record charged with driving over 80. Found NOT GUILTY at trial on the basis of necessity.
R. v. V.B. Client had more than double the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Found NOT GUILTY because all evidence excluded following a successful Charter application based on the failure of the police to advise the defendant of this right to counsel while waiting for the roadside screening device to be brought to the scene.
R. v. T.P. Charged with impaired/over 80 CAUSING DEATH in a fatal accident involving a pedestrian on highway 401. Found NOT GUILTY following a one-month trial in Superior Court.
R. v. P.P Charged with impaired operation CAUSING DEATH. All charges STAYED on the first morning of trial after I presented evidence to the crown indicating another person was the likely driver.
R. v. J.B. Found NOT GUILTY at trail on the basis of the inability of the crown to link the measured blood-alcohol level to the time of his driving.
Guns
R. v. M.A. This teenager was found in a car that contained a gun, drugs and alleged proceeds of crime. All charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. M.T. This young person was charged with possession of a firearm. Cross examination at trial of the expert from the Centre for Forensic Sciences demonstrated she was wrong to characterize the item seized as an operable firearm and the client was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v. H.A. This teenager was charged with possession of an illegal semi-automatic rifle and a large amount of ammunition which the police found under his mattress. These charges were WITHDRAWN in response to our application to exclude the evidence because of a number of violations of the client’s rights.
R. v. R.C. This young father of two children was charged with possessing a loaded prohibited firearm when he was arrested as the lone occupant of taxi in which the firearm was found. He was found NOT GUILTY at trial.
R. v. F.E. This client was charged with assaulting a neighbour with a weapon. Following a trial with a successful cross-examination of the complainant the client was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v. Y.R. This client was charged with breach of a prohibition order by possessing a number of firearms. He was found NOT GUILTY because i established a reasonable doubt about whether the prohibition order had been fully explained to him by the authorities.
R. v. S.O. This individual was charged with a number of gas station robberies using a firearm. There was video surveillance and a probation officer who said he could identify the accused on the videos. Client was found NOT GUILTY at trial.
R. v. W.W. This client was charged with possessing a number of machine guns, handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and a large quantity of drugs. He was found with the illegal items and confessed to the police. All evidence was EXCLUDED following a successful Charter application that dealt with search warrants, Step 6, confidential informants and illegal questioning of the accused. Client NOT GUILTY
R. v. T.G. This client was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm while loaded and a number of related charges All matters WITHDRAWN on the first day of the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. A.P. This young person was charged with possession of a firearm. All charges DISMISSED at trial.
R. v. C.E. Client was charged with a threatening a neighbour with a gun, and was found NOT GUILTY at trial.
R. v. D.B. Charged with a number of weapons offences. All charges WITHDRAWN on day of trial.
R. v. C.M. This client was charged with possession of a firearm among many other offences. All charges DISMISSED following the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. B.C. Facing a mandatory 3-year sentence, on the basis of a Charter challenge to the search warrant, the s,95(1) charge (with the minimum 3-year sentence) was WITHDRAWN
R. v. E.C. Charged with a number of firearms offences, all charges WITHDRAWN.
Make/Possession Child Pornography
R. v. R.J. Charged with making child pornography of his daughter and another person, found NOT GUILTY after a lengthy Superior Court trial.
R. M.S. While entering Canada at Pearson Airport, a number child pornography videos were found on his phone. Following a detailed review of the expert evidence and subsequent negotiation, all charges were WITHDRAWN.
Home Invasion
R. v. M.M. Very serious home invasion, charges WITHDRAWN after cross examination at the preliminary inquiry totally discredited the so-called victim.
Domestic Assault
R. v. D.A. A woman charged with domestic assault against her boyfriend. All charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. S.O. This young woman was charged with domestic assault when in reality she was the victim. Following negotiations with the crown all charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. R.S.C. This is a woman who was charged with assaulting her ex-boyfriend. I explained the context of the incident to the prosecution and all charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. B.M.P This young man is a recent immigrant from Mexico with a number of personal challenges. He was charged with a number of repeated domestic violence offences. Following significant negotiations all charges were WITHDRAWN.
R. v. J.S. This client was charged with a very serious domestic assault. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. W.T. Charged with beating his girlfriend and having his dog attack her and an innocent bystander. All charges WITHDRAWN at trial.
R. v. S.A. Charged with a serious domestic assault with two children present. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. A.R. A very successful artist charged with assaulting his spouse while under the influence of substances. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. V.G. A lawyer charged with assaulting his wife. All charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. L.G. Client charged with a number of very serious assaults, including choking, which required hospitalization. On the second day of cross-examination of the alleged victim, the prosecution joined with the defence in asking for the charges to be DISMISSED.
R. v. R.J. Charged with a number of domestic assaults resulting in broken bones, found NOT GUILTY at trial.
R. v. C.D. Charged with a serious domestic assault, charges WITHDRAWN at trial.
R. v. G.A. Charged with a number of serious assaults, found NOT GUILTY at trial.
R. v. F.E. Client was charged with beating his partner and forcing her in to prostitution. Following several days of cross-examination of the so-called victim, charge DISMISSED at the request of both Crown and defence.
R. v. J.M. Client was charged with a number of threatening offences relating to his girlfriend. All charges WITHDRAWN.
Break & Enter
R. v. Y.R. Charged with Break & Enter and Obstruct Police on the basis of a flawed police investigation. Charges WITHDRAWN on the first day of the preliminary inquiry.
R. v. D.D. Charged with Break & Enter on the basis of a so-called fingerprint match. Crown called expert evidence to establish the so-called match. Client foundNOT GUILTY at trial and his acquittal UPHELD ON APPEAL.
R. v. D.S. This man was charged with the theft of a Rolex watch. All charges were DISMISSED at the preliminary inquiry.
Appeals
R. v. I.K. Appeal of sentence in relation to a homicide that occurred during a home invasion robbery. Sentence reduced on appeal from 10 to 7 years (effectively TIME-SERVED).
R. v. C.S. Appeal involving the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. Victory at the Court of Appeal followed by contested leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave denied, charges WITHDRAWN.
R. v. D.D. Crown appeal of a successful defence involving fingerprint evidence. Appeal dismissed, client NOT GUILTY.
Dangerous Offender
R. v. W.N. This client was charged with his fifth failure to comply with LTSO. The crown sought a penitentiary sentence. I brought a Charter application and sought a Gladue report. After a contested sentencing client was given a suspended sentence and a small fine.
R. v. W.G. Client facing indefinite detention, after preparation of a vigorous defence, consent sentence amounting to TIME-SERVED plus a 5-year LTSO.
R. v. A.P. Client charged with intimidate justice system participant. Charge WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
Robbery
R. v. J.F. Charged with robbing a taxi driver, all charges were WITHDRAWN on the first day of trial.
R. v. D.R. This client was charged with a serious robbery. All charges were WITHDRAWN on the first day of trial.
R. v. J.H. Charged with a very serious robbery, eyewitness identification was the main issue at trial. Client found NOT GUILTY.
R. v. N.N. Charged with a very serious robbery and pistol whipping, charges dismissed after evidence excluded following a Charter application. Client found NOT GUILTY.
R. v. N.N. Charged with the armed robbery of a fast-food outlet, all charges DISMISSED during preliminary inquiry.
FAQs
CLICK ON THE QUESTIONS BELOW TO SEE THE ANSWER
The police phoned, said I’m a suspect in a case, and told me to come in to give a statement. Do I have to go and speak to them?
The police often make it sound like people have to talk to them, when in fact they don’t. You do NOT have to go to the police station if you choose not to. You do NOT have to speak to the police if you choose not to. I you decide to speak to the police, you should not lie to them. You SHOULD phone a lawyer right away. Call us at any time (416) 767-0143.
I’ve been arrested what should I say?
You have the right to silence AT ALL TIMES, whether you’ve been arrested, or have been stopped by the police.
Generally speaking, it is best not to speak to the police. You probably already know that anything you say that hurts your case can be used against you, but you might not know that anything you say that HELPS your case CAN NOT be used in your trial. Sometimes people are curious about the case against them, or think they are helping establish their innocence when they speak to the police but they are often mistaken. For example, a person who, in response to questions about an assault says ‘He attacked me, I was defending myself’ might think he is helping himself, but he has just admitted being in a fight with the victim, which could really hurt his defence.
You have the right to know that our Supreme Court of Canada has allowed police to get away with lying to defendants, misleading them and basically ignoring a defendant’s repeated request to speak to his lawyer. They can also put an undercover police officer in the cells or paddy wagon who will pretend to be another defendant, act friendly with you, and try to get you to confess. This means you have to consider the police might be lying when they tell you something about the case, (like we have surveillance video, or your fingerprints) and that you have to be strong if you want to protect your rights. Just keep saying ‘I want to talk to my lawyer’ and nothing else.
My son’s been arrested, and is being held for a bail hearing? Can I bail him out?
The short answer is maybe. The law as written in the Criminal Code provides for a very logical and generous system of bail. It may surprise you to know that in practice, courts often don’t follow the Criminal Code! Too often sureties are demanded when the letter of the law does not require a surety. Also, courts routinely impose house arrest and other unnecessary, strict bail conditions in complete violation of the law as written. Make sure you contact our office and we will give you all the information and guidance you need to have the best chance of bringing your loved one home on a reasonable bail.
Please contact us with any further questions, and we would be happy to talk with you.
