Accomplished trial lawyers, Marcus and Norm will carefully assess your case and argue for every defence available to you.
Do not plead guilty without discussing your case with a lawyer.
Based in Toronto
With over 25 years experience, Norm Stanford and Marcus Bornfreund have successfully defended hundreds of charges, including impaired driving, dangerous driving, assault, drug trafficking, drug possession, theft, fraud, and murder. Many offences have mandatory minimum sentences and a conviction will often result in a lengthy jail sentence. Being found guilty may result in negative employment, immigration and personal consequences to you and your family for years to come.
Every Defence. Norm and Marcus will ensure that all of your rights are protected. You are presumed innocent. We will fight for the positive result you need to move on with your life.
To speak with Norm or Marcus, call (416) 855-7799 or email us at [email protected] We accept calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Confidentiality guaranteed. Free consultations. Meeting by appointment only.
What Clients Say
Bails, Trials, and Appeals
Criminal Barristers with 25 years of combined experience. We appear throughout Ontario at every level of criminal court.
Reasonable Fees. Every Defence. Legal Aid accepted for extremely serious matters only.
Criminal and Regulatory Defence Litigation
Criminal Defence, Quasi-Criminal Proceedings, Regulatory Matters, Professional Misconduct, Ontario Review Board, Private Complaints and Crisis Management.
Some Recent Successes
R. v. C.C – Identification of offender not proven
Our client was charged with Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident, Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample. The police received several calls regarding a car that had driven onto the sidewalk and crashed into a utility pole and fire hydrant. The driver ran away from the vehicle and fled through an alleyway. Police searched the area and observed our client, who fit the description of the man witnesses had seen running from where the accident had happened. After speaking to our client for a few minutes, our client became belligerent leading the police officers to handcuff him …
R. v. C.M – Identification of offender not proven
Our client was charged with Assault Cause Bodily Harm and Assault in relation to a bar fight in which one of the victims was seriously injured as a result of being hit in the head with a beer bottle. We were able to convince the Crown Attorney that considering the commotion inside the bar at the time, the number of people involved in the fight, the poor lighting inside the bar and the fact that all the witnesses appeared to be intoxicated, it was extremely unlikely that it could be proven that our client was the individual who had committed …
R. v. M.N. – Identification of offender not proven
Our client was charged with Flight from Police and Dangerous Driving. He was accused of going close to 200 km/hr on a motorcycle and, when the police tried to pull him over, fleeing at an even higher rate of speed and evading the police officer who was in pursuit. The police officer noted the licence plate number but was unable to identify the rider. At trial, the Crown Attorney had to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to try to prove the case; specifically the owner of the motorcycle testified that he had loaned the bike to our client on the …
R. v. M.R – Identification of offender not proven, Charges Dismissed
Our client was charged with robbing a man of his wallet in an alleyway. It was alleged that our client had befriended the victim in a bar and that when they went outside for a cigarette together, our client threatened and assaulted the victim and stole his wallet. Our client’s health card was found by the victim in the ground in the alleyway where the robbery had taken place shortly after the assailant was said to have fled. At trial, through effective cross-examination, we successfully demonstrated that victim’s ability to describe the assailant was unreliable and that he may have …
R. v G.B. – Reasonable doubt re: self-defence
Our client was charged with several domestic related assaults that his girlfriend alleged had occurred over the course of a couple of months. At trial, our client testified that any physical altercations with his girlfriend were the result of his girlfriend having been the aggressor and that any force he used was done for the purpose of defending himself. We also called witnesses who testified about they dynamic of the relationship and that, on several occasions, they had observed the complainant behave in an aggressive manner towards our client. As a result of our effective cross-examination of the complainant, the …
R. v. D.T. – Reasonable doubt re: self-defence
Our client was charged with assault bodily harm after it was alleged that while at a party, our client hit a man in the face with a glass that resulted in serious injuries. At trial, our client testified that his friend had invited him to a party and that while he was socializing, one of the partygoers accused our client of flirting with his girlfriend. This man, along with his friends, surrounded our client in a threatening manner. Our client, who was holding a glass of beer at the time, believed one of the men was about to punch him …
email: [email protected]
B.A., LL.B, LL.M.
email: [email protected]
Members in good standing of the Law Society of Ontario, Toronto Lawyers Association and Criminal Lawyers Association.