Our Team
Joseph Wilkinson
Partner

Contact

T: 416-360-2773  | 
F: 416-362-8410  | 

Bar Admission

1997

Areas of Expertise

Crimnal Appeals

Criminal Law

Professional Discipline

Regulatory Offences

Appeals

Joseph Wilkinson is a partner at Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP, practicing in the areas of criminal law, professional discipline, and regulatory offences. A significant portion of his practice involves appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Mr. Wilkinson received his B.A. (Hons.) in philosophy and history at the University of Western Ontario and went on to graduate from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1996. In 1999, after articling with the firm of Gold & Fuerst Mr. Wilkinson was called to the Bar of Ontario.

Mr. Wilkinson became an associate at Hick Block Adams LLP and then a partner where he ran his appellate and trial practice until 2005 when he left and formed his own firm, Wilkinson & Associate. In 2010, Mr. Wilkinson joined forces with Michael Lacy by forming Lacy Wilkinson LLP. That firm merged with the firm of the late Edward L. Greenspan Q.C. to form Greenspan Partners LLP where Mr. Wilkinson had the privilege of being partners with Mr. Greenspan until his unfortunate passing in December of 2014.

Mr. Wilkinson has appeared at all levels of court in Ontario, and in the Supreme Court of Canada, both as counsel for appellants and intervenors. Mr. Wilkinson has appeared as duty counsel at the Court of Appeal for Ontario assisting unrepresented litigants to advance their appeals. He has also been counsel on over sixty appeals to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Jan 28, 2016

DILUTION OF THE RIGHT TO MAKE FULL ANSWER AND DEFENCE: THE NEW DISCLOSURE REGIME IN THE CHARTER APPLICATION CONTEXT. Requiring the Crown to provide disclosure of the fruits of the police investigation so that an accused person can make full answer and defence is the constitutional starting point to ensuring a fair trial. Few could reasonably debate this basic proposition.. Read the full article on www.oba.org

Sep 2, 2016

Ruling said to mean state can 'attack anyone. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling reinforces the federal Food and Drugs Act's overly broad definition of a drug and will only create confusion and stifle innovation, says a British Columbia lawyer who frequently works with the natural health products industry.

"Now it’s wide open," said Shawn Buckley, principal lawyer with Kamloops, B.C.,-based Buckley & Company. "This decision means basically Health Canada can go after anyone at any given time and say, 'You’re a drug.' The state can arbitrarily attack anyone and there's nothing you can do. They should call it the tyranny act". Read the full article on The Lawyers Weekly.

Some of Mr. Wilkinson's more notable appellate cases, include:

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

  • R. v. Tse, [2012] S.C.J. No. 16

  • Acted for the intervener on the issue of whether the emergency wiretap provision of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional

  • R. v. Van, S.C.J. No. 22

  • Acted for the appellant on issue concerning jury charges on defences of inadequate police investigations and one of the leading cases on the applicability of the curative proviso.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

  • U.S.A. v. Viscomi, [2015] O.J. No. 3448

  • Acted for the appellant on a challenge to the gather and send provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act questioning the constitutionality of Canada's ability to collect and share information and evidence with other countries.

  • R. v. Lucas, [2014] O.J. No. 3471

  • Acted for the appellant on a challenge to the constitutionality of the general warrant provision of the Criminal Code

  • R. v. Aneja, [2014] O.J. No. 2500

  • Acted for the appellant on a case concerning the test to be applied in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on an extradition request from the United States

  • R. v. Robinson [2014] O.J. No. 272

  • Acted for the appellant on an appeal against a conviction for second-degree murder concerning the admissibility of evidence through the "adoption by silence" exception to the hearsay rule where the conviction was overturned, evidence excluded and a conviction for manslaughter substituted.

  • R. v. Rowe, [2011] O.J. No. 5382

  • Appeal from convictions from robbery and firearms offences, where issue of specimen jury charges and complexity and overcharging in jury instructions considered as it raised an issue of “general concern for the conduct of criminal jury trials”.

  • R. v. Singh, [2010] O.J. No. 5622

  • Appeal from conviction for second-degree murder considering improper Crown cross-examination of defence witnesses and the admissibility of ante-mortem hearsay statements from the deceased.

  • R. v. Rybak, [2008] O.J. No. 1715

  • Appeal from conviction for second-degree murder where the adequacy and competency of the interpreter provided to the accused at trial was at issue. The leading case on right to an interpreter.

  • R. v. Varcoe, [2007] O.J. No. 1009

  • Appeal from conviction for sexual assault. Appeal allowed due to flawed election process depriving the court of jurisdiction.

  • R. v. Oliver, [2005] O.J. No. 596

  • Appeal from a conviction for second-degree murder where constitutionality of number of preemptory challenges to potential jurors considered

  • R. v. Czibulka, [2004] O.J. No. 3723

  • Appeal from second-degree murder conviction allowed because of inadmissible hearsay evidence and incorrect charge on mental element for second degree-murder. Case led to modification of specimen jury charge on the mens rea for murder

  • R. v. Bajrangie-Singh, [2003] O.J. No. 1166

  • Appeal from conviction for second-degree murder where issues of automatism considered.

  • R. v. Nee-Whang, [2000] O.J. No. 4088

  • Appeal from drug convictions allowed because trial judge improperly refused adjournment to permit defence to call a witness.