Criminal litigation is serious business, and the stakes for the clients we defend are as high as they come. Your job. Your reputation. Your freedom.


Our clients come to us with the worst kind of problems and we solve them—with creative, focused, determined advocacy.




We defend.

Our firm was founded in Ottawa by a group of hungry young criminal lawyers who believed that every one of our clients deserved a smart, creative, fearless defence.

We still believe that. And with years of experience defending serious, complex cases behind us, we have evolved into a focused group of seasoned professionals. Each one of our partners brings razor-sharp intellect, finely-honed judgment, and the courtroom skills that can make the difference between success and failure.

Our clients.

Over the years, our lawyers have been sought out by clients from across Ontario, and from all walks of life. We represent executives, civil servants, doctors, pharmacists, high-tech workers, and diplomats. Our clients also include institutions and organizations facing criminal or regulatory issues.

But we also believe quality representation should not only be available to those who can easily afford it. We have the flexibility to accommodate clients who might otherwise struggle to pay for top-flight legal representation. And, in appropriate cases, we accept Legal Aid.

Our cases.

We have what it takes to defend any criminal charge, regulatory infraction, or disciplinary offence. White-collar crime. Drugs. Crimes of violence. Driving offences, including impaired driving. We provide specialized representation at all stages of litigation. We give counsel to individuals and institutional clients about their legal responsibilities. And we represent people who have been charged: obtaining bail, at trial, and on appeal.

Our reach.

We are situated in Ottawa, and we regularly appear in Gatineau and Eastern Ontario, including Brockville, Kingston, L’Orignal, Pembroke, Arnprior, Perth, Smiths Falls, Alexandria, and Morrisburg.

But our reach doesn’t end there. We are often sought out by clients elsewhere, including Toronto, Thunder Bay, and beyond.

Our approach.

In our business, there is such a thing as being too nice. We never lose sight of the fact that a prosecution is always personal—someone is trying to take away your reputation, your future, your freedom. We respect our adversaries, but we never forget that we are there to protect our clients, not to make friends.

A custom-crafted defence.

Beware the cookie-cutter defence. Every client is different. Every case is different. We get to know our clients and we spend the time to find out what approach will work them.

And we know the simple things count. We will return your phone calls. We will keep you up-to-date on your case. And we will get to know you and your goals as we craft our strategy and your defence.


Criminal Trials

We are trial lawyers.

In a criminal trial there is no room for mistakes. It’s under that kind of pressure that we do our best work. Judge or jury. Murder trial or impaired driving charge. Cracking open a tough witness or advancing a complicated legal argument. The courtroom is our comfort zone. We believe there are no impossible cases.

Discrete Lawyering

Keeping a lid on criminal charges.

You need to have a touch of showmanship in your blood to love jury litigation, and we’re always pleased to have a big win splashed across the newspapers. But a big part of the work we do is out-of-court lawyering—negotiating, cajoling, convincing. Turning big cases into little ones, and making little ones go away entirely. You won’t see these cases in the newspaper. Now, we like being in the news, but we find that many of our clients prefer to get a great result and skip the media attention. We’re happy to oblige.


It ain’t over till it’s over.

The worst words a criminal defendant can hear from a judge or jury: guilty as charged. We have brought countless clients back from that abyss. Clients convicted of all kinds of offences have put their faith in us to deliver the just result they were denied at trial. Few firms have the experience, and or have had the success, that we have had in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.


No movement on scrapping surcharge

The federal government says it has not taken further steps to give judges the discretion to waive the mandatory victim surcharge, despite announcing its intention to do so 14 months ago, because of a lack of time available in Parliament. […] Periods of 12 to 18 months or even longer to pay the charges are not uncommon, says Michael Spratt, a defence lawyer and partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners LLP in Ottawa. “The justice system seeks to level itself when there is an imbalance. I wish those who make up criminal justice policies would actually spend more time in courts,” Spratt says. The mandatory surcharges can create “absurdities,” he suggests, such as in a recent Ottawa case where an individual was classified as a dangerous offender with an indeterminate prison sentence and the judge was also required to impose a $100 penalty for a breach of a court order. Read the full article: Law... read more

Security screening at Toronto Police HQ could have ‘chilling effect’ on public access, lawyers say

Lawyers are siding with a recent motion put forth to end security searches of people attending Toronto Police disciplinary hearings. Lawyer Selwyn Pieters filed a motion Nov. 28 to Toronto Police hearings officer Insp. Richard Hegedus, objecting to the mandatory security screening the force recently put in place at the entranceway of its downtown headquarters. […] Security searches such as this “can often represent a barrier to public attendance,” said Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt, of Abergel Goldstein and Partners LLP. “It is particularly troubling that when police are accused of violations of their sworn duties and accused of intimidation and violence, the public that was subject to the intimidation and violence must subject themselves to further police searches in order to give evidence or witness the hearing,” said Spratt. “These types of police misconduct [hearings] should not be conducted at police headquarters. They should be held in accessible and neutral locations to encourage public participation and limit any appearance of bias.” Read the full article: Lawyer’s... read more

Proposed impaired driving laws could lead to ‘criminalizing’ some pot users, lawyers say

A letter to Ottawa from lawyers panning proposed Criminal Code changes around marijuana use and impaired driving highlights the need for evidence-based legislation, not “gut reaction” policy that would criminalize the innocent and beat down the disadvantaged, says a signee. […] Ottawa lawyer Michael Spratt, of Abergel Goldstein & Partners LLP, is one of the letter’s signees. He said the proposal’s category of 2-5 ngs of THC is problematic, explaining that someone could fall within this range but not be impaired. He points to the government’s own description of this lower, summary conviction criminal charge as “not directly linked to impairment, but is, rather, based on a precautionary or a crime prevention approach.” “The problem with the lower threshold is that the government, even in its own write-up of the regulations, acknowledges that the 2 ngs doesn’t correspond to any impairment,” said Spratt. “It doesn’t mean that you are impaired at that level, and that’s where the problem arises because we are going to be criminalizing individuals through the imposition of a criminal record and the collateral consequences of that.” Read the Full article: Lawyer’s... read more

Defence bar hopes Senate will amend sexual assault law reforms

With MPs poised to send the Trudeau government’s controversial proposed sexual assault law reforms to the Senate with only a few changes, the defence bar is hoping its constitutional red flags will get more attention from the chamber of “sober second thought.” […] In supporting the amendment Nov. 8, the Conservatives’ deputy justice critic Michael Cooper told MPs: “I have significant concerns about the changes to the Criminal Code with respect to the application process for defendants who have records related to the complainant — I think there are real distinctions between that scenario and records that are in the hands of third parties, which is why I voted against the previous clause. But at the very least, I believe there is absolutely no reason why one would have to go through the application process in the case of a witness.” The Edmonton litigator also told committee members after testimony on Bill C-51 by Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt last month that “I agree with Mr. Spratt when he stated that the reverse disclosure requirements for the defence could potentially tip the hand of [the defence to] a liar, who would then be given an opportunity, as a result of sitting in and getting access to those records, and have an understanding of the defence’s litigation strategy to explain away inconsistencies and contradictions.” Read the Full article: Lawyer’s... read more

Lawyers criticize proposed THC regulation

Lawyers say a government proposal to criminalize having a certain amount of THC in your blood two hours after driving will likely face a Charter challenge if implemented. […] Criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt, who also signed the letter, says a criminal record for this offence could prevent international travel, limit employment opportunities and preclude full participation in society. “This is especially true given that we know there will be a disproportionate impact on visible minorities and marginalized members of society. This is a shocking and unprecedented use of criminal law power.” He adds that the law is “irrational, not based on evidence and overly broad.” Read the full article: Law... read more

Religious groups urge MPs to keep Criminal Code prohibition on disrupting a worship service

OTTAWA — Some of Canada’s major religious organizations are trying to convince MPs to back off removing a section of the Criminal Code that makes it a specific crime to disrupt a religious gathering, arguing it will erode the freedom to worship. […] Defence lawyer Michael Spratt argued the committee should stay focused on simplifying the Criminal Code, and trust that the courts will still give serious treatment to threats to religious freedom. “A judge undoubtedly would view causing disturbance and interrupting a baptism or a bar mitzvah or another solemn religious service much differently from someone screaming on the corner of a busy street,” he said. Read the full article: National... read more


Criminal defence lawyers need to be included in mental health conversation

Criminal defence lawyers have thick skins. It’s sort of a requirement of the job. After all, we exist in an adversarial system. We are overworked and usually underpaid compared to our courtroom adversaries. We often represent unpopular clients who are accused of committing unspeakable acts. There are no snowflakes in the defence bar. But we are human too. On Sept. 8, after bedtime baths and stories were done and the kids were tucked in for the night, I sat down on the couch, put my feet up and had a beer. I was tired. I had been in court all week and working late every night defending a client accused of a very serious sexual assault. Earlier that day my client had been found not guilty. It had been my sixth sexual assault trial in a row. That is how I spend my summer. Professionally, it had been a successful couple of months. In each of the trials my client had been acquitted. It was also the worst summer of my life. But that night, sitting on the couch, I did not even realize this. I felt depressed and I did not know why. It should have been obvious but it wasn’t. Not until I actually took the time to think about it. Anyone who spends time in Canada’s criminal courts can tell you it is nothing like you see on television. Rarely are there Matlockmoments where a case is solved with one well-timed question. There is drama and excitement in court but this is usually broken up by long periods of dull procedural and legal argument. But television... read more

Ontario’s bail reform: Its time to follow the law

Last month, Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi delivered a stunning rebuke of his Crown attorneys and publicly announced that they had not been following the law. But that was not how Naqvi spun the announcement of new provincial bail directives. Naqvi did not directly call out his Crowns. In fact, he insisted that they had been acting perfectly appropriately. Naqvi instead focused on the fact that his new directives would make the bail system operate faster and fairer and help to protect the safety of the public. According to Naqvi, the new bail announcement was part of a progressive effort on the part of the government to reduce inequities in the justice system — particularly when it comes to indigenous and racialized communities. The Toronto Star’s editorial board characterized the Naqvi announcement as “sensible policy.” But what did Naqvi really announce? The new bail policy seems pretty elemental: Prosecutors should only seek detention if there is a prospect of conviction, any bail order should be as least restrictive as possible and conditions of release should be rationally connected to the allegation and to one of the three grounds for detention in custody. This was not the case before? Were prosecutors seeking the detention of presumed innocent accused when they had no chance of proving guilty? Were prosecutors insisting on overly restrictive bail conditions? Were prosecutors advocating for bail terms that had no relation to the alleged offence? Sure they were. And this should have been the real story. Naqvi’s new directives bring Ontario’s bail policy up to the minimum standards. This can hardly be called progressive. This year, the... read more

Marijuana bill another example of Liberals’ broken promises

The Liberals made a lot of promises during the 2015 election. Who could blame them? A third-place party needs to shoot for the moon. But as electoral reform, lower small business taxes, stock option loopholes, modest deficits and on and on demonstrate, election promises are made to be broken. So perhaps it should not be a surprise that the Grits are on their way to breaking a few more campaign pledges — a promise to base policy on evidence and a promise to improve parliamentary committees. The evidence of these latest campaign reversals can be found in another half-kept promise — legal marijuana. When it comes to legalization of marijuana, it seems that the Liberals will keep their promise — sort of. They pledged to legalize marijuana because it “traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system,” because illegal weed funds criminal organizations and because legal but regulated cannabis better keeps drugs away from our children. So, in 2015, the Liberals promised to “remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code.” But the Liberal’s proposed cannabis bill actually doesn’t do any of those things very well. Sure, the new legislation does legalize some marijuana — some of the time, under some circumstances — but it does not “remove marijuana consumption and possession from the Criminal Code.” In reality, the new bill is an unnecessarily complex piece of legislation that leaves intact the criminalization of marijuana in many circumstances. An adult who possesses more than 30 grams of marijuana in public is a criminal. A youth who possesses more than five grams of marijuana is a criminal. An 18-year-old who... read more

Not all Marijuana will be legal

The irrationality of the Liberal government’s legislation to legalize marijuana was brought into sharp focus last week as bill C-45 made its way through the health committee (check out my testimony here). The problem is obvious — the war on drugs has been an abject failure. Criminalization of marijuana abdicates control over the production, distribution and regulation of cannabis to criminal organizations. Yes, your dealer may be a middle-class, suburban stay-at-home dad, but as a criminal lawyer, I have seen the bloodshed brought about by illegal weed. The bottom line is that the criminalization of marijuana kills. But this is not all it does. The criminalization of marijuana is a drain on court resources and diverts law enforcement resources away from truly harmful activities. The prosecution of marijuana offences unduly stigmatizes otherwise law-abiding citizens through the imposition of a criminal record. But it gets worse. The criminalization of marijuana disproportionally impacts individuals who are young, marginalized, members of over-policed communities or are racialized. It is these groups that are more likely to be targeted and arrested by the police and prosecuted by the federal government’s lawyers. Most of the clients I have represented over the past decade charged with simple possession of marijuana have been poor, from a minority group or lived in an area with a heavy police presence. In our drug laws are echoes of racism and bias. Bill C-45 may be a grudging step in the right direction, but it is no cure to the ills inflicted through marijuana criminalization. The bill is an unnecessarily complex piece of legislation that leaves intact the criminalization of marijuana in... read more

Justice by the polls

Canadians were told that reforming the justice system was a priority for Jody Wilson-Raybould and the Trudeau government. We were told evidence-based policy is the new order of business when it comes to crime and punishment. Both Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould identified the use of mandatory minimum sentences and constraints on judicial discretion as priority areas for reform. And then there was no action. But last year at the Criminal Lawyers’ Associations annual conference, Wilson-Raybould was crystal clear in saying that restoring judicial discretion was an issue of upmost importance — she told the crowd that justice couldn’t be a one-size-fits-all proposition. Specifically, she said that mandatory minimum sentences were a priority for change and promised that reforms were coming. And then, again, there was no action on minimum sentences. Heck, Wilson-Raybold even introduced legislation to repeal laws that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled are unconstitutional — except for the minimum sentences. So what can possibly explain the government’s lack of action on minimum sentences? Well, it seems that the government’s resolve on evidence-based decision-making and progressive justice policy may begin and end with public opinion. Last week Jessica Prince, senior policy advisor to the minister of Justice, tweeted a link out to an EKOS survey commissioned by the Department of Justice. The survey seeks the public’s feedback on the use and effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. Forget the EKOS questions. The question we should be asking is why? Let’s be frank. The public’s opinion on minimum sentences is irrelevant if the goal is genuinely to enact policy based on evidence. Just like the public’s opinion on whether global warming is... read more

Why Decriminalizing All Drugs Makes Sense

Last week, Ottawa’s medical officer of health, Dr. Isra Levy, pledged Ottawa Public Health’s support for “new evidence-based approaches” to combat the problems caused by illegal drugs including – wait for it – decriminalization. City Coun.Mathieu Fleury said,“It’s a crazy thought, but it’s a crazy thought that might actually have some merit. Fleury should be commended. Where Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson had cast off the shackles of evidence-based thinking to stand against the city’s first safe consumption site, Fleury’s open mindedness is a breath of fresh air. But Fleury is wrong on one point. Decriminalization of all drugs is not a crazy idea at all. If you care about saving lives, if you care about ending the cycle of addiction, if you care about keeping our communities safe, if you care about fiscal responsibility, or even if you only care about cracking down on crime – decriminalization makes sense. But first let’s look at our current drug policy: criminalization. There is no need to engage in an exhaustive review of the history of Canadian drug policy. One need not trace the lineage of the 1908 Opium Act through to modern-day mandatory minimum drug sentences to conclude that the criminalization of narcotics has failed to eliminate drugs. The spoils of the tough-on-crime drug war are laid bare on our streets and in our jails.   Sadly, the war on drugs has also done nothing to eliminate the disastrous harms associated with narcotics. In 2011, the considered a subset of these harms, those associated with injectable drug use, in Vancouver’s downtown eastside. A survey of approximately 1,000 intravenous drug users demonstrated... read more