1. RECENT SUCCESSES

Nathan Gorham is a criminal lawyer in Toronto and a founding partner at the largest firm of criminal lawyers in Toronto.  He represents people charged with all types of criminal offences including Murder, Impaired Operation, Over 0.08, DUI, Domestic Assault, Theft, Fraud, Firearms, and Drugs.  To view a more comprehensive list of past cases visit Curriculum Vitae page. 

MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - Sitemap
NATHAN GORHAM 
CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER
shapeimage_4_link_16Home.htmlFees.htmlConsultations.htmlAbout.htmlToronto_Murder_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drinking_and_Driving_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Domestic_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Theft_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drug_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Firearms_Lawyer.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0shapeimage_3_link_1shapeimage_3_link_2shapeimage_3_link_3shapeimage_3_link_4shapeimage_3_link_5shapeimage_3_link_6shapeimage_3_link_7shapeimage_3_link_8shapeimage_3_link_9shapeimage_3_link_10shapeimage_3_link_11shapeimage_3_link_12shapeimage_3_link_13shapeimage_3_link_14

November 2014 |  Drinking and driving charges (Impaired and Over 0.08) withdrawn

  1. The defendant, a young professional, was charged with Impaired operation and Operation over 0.08 after being stopped on the way home from a restaurant. The police officer alleged that he stopped with the nose of the car over the stop line, and then proceeded to make a wide left turn.  The officer stopped him and then required him to blow into a roadside alcohol screening device.  The defendant was then taken to the police station and required to give breath samples.  His readings were .140.  The defence filed a Charter application challenging the grounds for the initial traffic stop.  Eventually the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  The charges of Impaired Operation and Operation Over 0.08 were withdrawn.



November 2014  |  Dangerous driving and Fail to Remain charges withdrawn

  1. The defendant was alleged to have taken his friend’s motorcycle for a ride without a proper licence.  When the police saw him he attempted to avoid the traffic stop.  A crash followed.  After consideration of the exception and compassionate circumstances the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges of Dangerous Driving and Fail to Remain.



October 2014  |  Domestic Assault charge withdrawn

  1. The defendant became involved in argument with his wife concerning financial and family matters.  His wife phoned the police and alleged that she had been assaulted multiple occasions in the past. The defendant was arrested and held for a bail hearing.  After negotiation with the Crown concerning the strength of the case and the sympathetic circumstances, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge of Assault.



October 2014  |  Crown agrees to withdraw Drinking and Driving (Over 0.08) charges

  1. The defendant was stopped after the police observed him talking on the cell phone while driving.  The officer noticed the smell of alcohol and took the defendant back to the police car to do field sobriety tests and a roadside alcohol screening.  The defendant failed and was arrested and taken to the police station to provide breath samples.  The samples .120.  At trial there was a issue about whether the test were taken as soon as practicable, and one of the Crown witnesses had not attended.  The trial date was adjourned but the Crown agreed to withdraw the drinking and driving ( Over 0.08 charge) in exchange for a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.



June 2014  |  “Not guilty” of murder during jury trial in the Superior Court

  1. The defendant was charged with murder.  The Crown witnesses alleged that the defendant and another man came to the park and attempted to rob one of their friends.  A fight broke out.  The Crown witnesses said that the defendant shot the deceased.  The defence was able to undermine the credibility the Crown witnesses.  At the close of the Crown’s case the Crown offered a plea to manslaughter for time served.  The defendant was found “not guilty” of murder and walked out of the custody box.



February 2014  |  “Not guilty” of Importing Cocaine following Superior Court trial

  1. The defendant was charged with Importing cocaine after the Canada Border Services Agency discovered approximately 1 kilogram of cocaine in her luggage.  She maintained her innocence and testified at trial before a jury.  The defence was able to establish through cross examination of the Crown’s drug expert that the defendant was possibly used a blind courier and that she had not known of the cocaine.  The jury found the defendant “not guilty” of importing cocaine.



February 2014  |  “Not guilty” Robbery with a Firearm following Superior Court trial

  1. The defendant was charged with Robbery with a firearm.  The complainant alleged that five men invaded his home and stolen many different possessions while holding him at gun point.  He alleged that the robbery was pay back because owed his local drug dealer 10 dollars from a previous drug purchase.  The co-accused in the case testified that the defendant was the mastermind behind the robbery.  The defence was able to undermine both the evidence of the complainant and the co-accused during cross-examination.  The defendant testified.  The trial judge found him “not guilty” of charges.



January 2014  |  “Not guilty” of Ecstacy, Marijuana and Proceeds charges following a jury trial

  1. The defendant was charged with Possession of Ecstacy and Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking as well as Proceeds after the police executed a search warrant and found several thousand ecstacy pills, a large amount of marijuana as well as cash.  The defendant maintained his innocence and pleaded “not guilty” before the jury.  The defence was able to establish significant evidence tending to implicate a third party suspect in the commission of the offence.  The defendant testified.  The jury found him “not guilty” of all counts.



January 2014  |  “Not guilty” of Firearms and Drug offences following trial in the Superior Court

  1. The defendant was arrested and charged with Firearms and Drug offences after the police conducted a high risk takedown and discovered a loaded handgun and several thousand dollars worth of cocaine in the car he was driving.  At trial the defence challenged the lawfulness of the police investigation.  The defence was able to undermine the credibility of the investigating officer.  The trial judge rejected his evidence and excluded the evidence pursuant to sections 8 and 24(2) Charter.  The defendant was found “not guilty” of all counts.


November 2014  |  “Not guilty” of Aggravated Assault during jury trial

  1. The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault (Domestic) after an altercation where his wife’s jaw was broken.  The defence gain significant ground during cross examination of the complainant.  The defendant had always maintained his innocence regarding the aggravated assault, but pleaded guilty to simple assault in defending himself against the complainant’s attack.  He was found “not guilty” of Aggravated assault.



Although courtroom experience, and success in defending certain types of cases might be an important factor in choosing a lawyer, it is important to note that past success is not necessarily a predictor of future success. The chances of success are dependant on the factual circumstances of a case.