|
Only a small percentage of
cases are chosen to be reported by legal publications.
These cases are deemed significant in having
created new legal precedent or in clarifying
points of law. These reported decisions act
as precedents on which the courts and counsel
rely in future cases.
Following
are a number of reported decisions of Ms. Fromstein’s:
 |
R v Mc 2009 - Ms. Fromstein’s client is the first ever to receive 4:1 credit for pre-trial custody at the Toronto Don Jail, due to the jail’s horrendous conditions. |
 |
R
v R 2008 - Ms. Fromstein obtains precedent-setting intermittent weekend sentence for client convicted of internet luring. |
 |
R
v Y 2006 - Charge of possession of 243
grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking
was Stayed against Ms. Fromstein’s
client after the defence won a Charter of
Rights “innocence at stake”
application. |
 |
R
v S 2004 – Ms. Fromstein’s
client was aquitted following trial on charges
of abduction of person under 14 years of
age and forcible confinement. In the course
of the trial the judge ruled on the admissibility
of statements made by the 3 year old child
complainant. |
|
R
v M 2002 – After achieving precedent-setting
ruling to strike down minimum jail term
for multiple impaired driving conviction,
Ms. Fromstein’s client was granted
a conditional sentence in the community
for impaired driving resulting in accident.
This disposition is no longer available
to other accuseds due to later judicial
decisions. |
|
R
v P 2001 – Ms. Fromstein’s
client sets early precedent by being given
enhanced credit of 3 for 1 for pre-trial
custody served at the Toronto Don Jail,
due to abhorrent conditions. [paragraph
6] |
|
R
v G 1997 – Summary Conviction
Appeal court rules Crown lost jurisdiction
over impaired driving accused. No further
proceedings against accused. |
|
R
v G 1997 – Challenge for cause
to wean out potential jury bias allowed
when homosexual accused charged with sexual
assault of youth. |
|
R
v A 1994 – Conspiracy to commit
murder charge dismissed after judge rules
that wiretap evidence is inadmissible. |
|
R
v M 1989 – Court of Appeal grants
sentence appeal and accused is released
from custody. |
|
R
v P 1988 – Ms. Fromstein’s
client was acquitted of robbery after the
court ruled that identification evidence
was inadmissible due to improperly conducted
police lineup. |
|
R
v S 1987 – Right to remain silent
upheld and accused’s statement ruled
inadmissible at trial. Accused acquitted
of conspiracy to commit murder by jury. |
| |
|
In The News:
Questioning
upsets woman who claims she was raped - GUELPH
MERCURY (May 30, 2006)
Aggravated sexual assault charge withdrawn
- GUELPH MERCURY (May 31, 2006)
In June 2009 Ms. Fromstein’s client was acquitted of 15 charges of historical sexual assault. At the completion of the trial she received the following letter.
Hi Cynthia,
I want to express my extreme gratitude for all you have done. Your talents have exceeded all our expectations and you have done a great service for my family. All I can say is, most sincerely, thank you.
R L
|