Prison Guard Sent to Jail at Prison Where He Worked is Cleared of All Charges

In the notable case of R v. Jurcic, {2014] OCJ TB a prison guard working at the Thunder Bay Jail was arrested and sent to jail at his own place of employment. During his incarceration at Thunder Bay Jail, Mr. Jurcic’s former colleagues and managers became his guards while the prisoners he previously guarded became his cell mates.


Being in custody at his former place of employment was both demoralizing and life-threatening.  He was guarded by his former colleagues and attacked by the prisoners her formerly guarded.  He was charged with three counts of forcible confinement, two counts each of assault and mischief to property, as well as one count each of assault with a weapon and extortion. The Thunder Bay jail suspended him with pay on March 25, 2013 and he was kept on paid leave until his employer fired him “for cause” on Dec. 13, 2013 based on the allegations.


Initially Jurcic retained local counsel but when it became clear that the matter was on track to proceed to trial he hired Robb MacDonald – a decision Mr. Jurcic called “one of the best decisions of [his] life.” The case went to trial in Thunder Bay on Jan. 23-24, 2014 and the judge reserved his decision until March 4, 2014 when Jurcic was acquitted of all charges. Jurcic reported that MacDonald was a “saving grace” and an “incredible courtroom force.”   He added: “watching my lawyer expose the complainant’s lies was the first bit of redemption that I received out of this whole ordeal.”


R v. Mullings [2010] O.J. No. 5028

I cannot leave this case without telling counsel that, as I’m entering a third decade as a judge on this bench, I can count on one hand the number of times I have said what I’m about to say to counsel.

Gentlemen, your courtesy, your civility and your professionalism with one another and to the Court in these proceedings is, in my view, a testament to your considerable skills as advocates.


Background: The reported case of R v. Mullings [2010] O.J. No. 5028, involved a lengthy jury trial in which Robb was pitted against veteran Federal Prosecutor, Jason Mitschele. Mr. Mullings was charged with 2 counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of possession of proceeds of crime. After Mr. Mullings was acquitted on two of three counts, Madam Justice Dunnet of the Superiour Court of Justice made the above comments about both Mr. MacDonald and Crown Attorney, Mr. Mitschele.




R v. Hoang

Robb MacDonald Road Rage Stabber Case

I Feel Like I Owe My Life to Robb.

I lost my fiancé, my job, and almost my house when I was first charged with these crimes. It felt like no one stood by me. As soon as I met Robb I had the utmost confidence in him and I knew he was the man for the job. He spent countless hours preparing me for the trial. During the trial, he performed an outstanding cross examination on the man who’d accused me of these crimes. At the end of Robb’s cross examination I knew that no one in the court room believed his side of story. Robb was nothing short of a life-saver.


Background: In the well publicized case of R v. Hoang (September 2012), the Defendant John Hoang faced charges involving: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon, and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon. Mr. Hoang was dubbed by the media “the road rage stabber.” Mr. Hoang reported to the Toronto Star that he took his case to 2 lawyers who both told him that his case was hopeless – advising him to plea guilty to a three year penitentiary sentence. A desperate Mr. Hoang retained Robb MacDonald one week before his trial began. Ultimately, Mr. MacDonald won the trial and Mr. Hoang was acquitted on all counts.




R v. Mach [2009] O.J. No. 3326

I had given up hope.

I thought there was no way to beat my charges. I spoke to other lawyers before meeting with Robb MacDonald and I was strongly considering entering a guilty plea. When Robb looked at my case, he suggested that we bring a Charter Argument. I didn’t even know what that was. We spent a whole day in court and Robb and the Crown Attorney argued about whether or not my Charter Rights had been violated because I had to wait so long for my trial date. At the end of the day, Robb’s arguments convinced the judge to stay all the charges against me.


Background: In this reported decision, the accused, Mr. Mach, was charged with impaired driving and refusal to blow. The latter charge is among the most difficult to defend because an offence is established once an accused refuses to provide a breath sample to police. In the face of a very strong Crown case, Robb brought a Charter argument pursuant to section 11 (B) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Robb was successful on the Charter argument and all of the charges against the Accused were stayed by Justice Barnes of the Ontario Court of Justice.


Is YOUR Case the Next Success Story? Contact Robb for a Free Consultation.