Peter Brauti is an Ontario lawyer (In Private Practice) with 43 court cases on record from 2000 to 2026.

What courts has Peter Brauti appeared in?

Peter Brauti has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Peter Brauti handled?

Peter Brauti has 43 cases on record from 2000 to 2026.

What judges has Peter Brauti appeared before?

Peter Brauti has most frequently appeared before Justice Gladys I. Pardu, Justice Edward F. Then, Justice Jennifer Woollcombe.

minicounsel

Peter Brauti | Lawyer

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Administrative Law

Employment and Labour Law

Peter Brauti

In Private PracticeSCJ

LSO Profile

Also known as: P. Brauti, Peter M. Brauti

LSO #40368W

cases · SCJ, OCJ, OCA, ODC

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

43 total

R. v. H.A., 2007 ONCA 530

Crown appeal from acquittals dismissed; trial judge made no errors in evidentiary rulings.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges of sexual abuse, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar fact evidence, excluding a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and permitting cross-examination on prior complaints.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the test for concoction regarding the similar fact evidence, properly exercised his discretion to exclude the College decision due to prejudicial effect, and appropriately instructed the jury on the use of prior complaints for assessing credibility.

OCAJul 16, 2007

Respondent Counsel

Michael McCormack v. The Toronto Police Service and Julian Fantino Chief of Police, 2005 ONSCDC 44399

Hearing officer's refusal to recuse quashed due to reasonable apprehension of personal bias.

The applicant, a police officer facing disciplinary charges, sought judicial review of the hearing officer's refusal to recuse himself.

The applicant argued there was a reasonable apprehension of personal bias because the hearing officer had a close working relationship with a key prosecution witness and had permitted the applicant to be cross-examined about his pending charges while testifying in an unrelated disciplinary matter.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the hearing officer's actions in the unrelated matter compromised his ability to fairly assess the applicant's credibility and effectively deprived the applicant of his statutory right to silence under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for the appointment of a new hearing officer.

ODCNov 30, 2005

Applicant Counsel

R. v. Ronald Albert Masse, 2000 ONCA 5755

Improper cross-examination and jury charge required a new trial.

The appellant appealed convictions for trafficking-related offences, possession of proceeds of crime, breach of probation, and fraud over $1000.

The appeal focused on improper Crown cross-examination that repeatedly required the accused to comment on whether an undercover officer was lying or mistaken, together with aspects of the jury charge that overstated the accused's interest in the outcome and reinforced the Crown's position.

The court held that, while a single impropriety may not undermine a verdict, the cumulative effect of the improprieties here caused serious prejudice and deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

OCAJul 19, 2000