Kevin Kaczmara

During his studies at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Kevin found time to do pro bono criminal defence work for low-income clients at Downtown Legal Services.  Not surprisingly, what interested Kevin the most was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides an invaluable check on the state’s powers.

Knowing that criminal defence was his true vocation, Kevin secured an articling position with the law firm of Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross, & Angelini, LLP. In addition to learning from some of the most experienced lawyers on some of the most serious cases. Kevin took the initiative himself by advocating in various summary offence matters under the Criminal Code and the Provincial Offences Act. After being called to the Law Society of Ontario, Kevin joined the firm of Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross  & Angelini, LLP, where he is now a partner. No matter the type of allegation you are facing, Kevin gives your case the attention that it deserves.

Kevin is fluent in both English and Polish. Born to an immigrant Polish family, he maintains strong ties to the Canadian-Polish community, and realizes the unique challenges faced by recent immigrants.

Kevin can be reached at any time at 647-403-0984, or at

Kevin provides his legal services (criminal and quasi-criminal law) all across the GTA, including Brampton, Milton, Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie, Newmarket, Orillia, and others. He regularly appears before both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.

See below for some of Kevin’s recent successes

In R. v. A.M., Kevin’s client was charged with trafficking cocaine (to an undercover police officer), possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime. While the co-accused (represented by a different lawyer) pleaded guilty, Kevin’s client would take the matter to trial. Before the trial, Kevin brought a Charter argument based on the police having suspended A.M.’s right to counsel for approximately 5 hours. The trial was scheduled for a 7-day jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice. On the first day of trial though, the Crown stayed the charges.

In R. v. B.P., Kevin’s client was charged with domestic assault and uttering threats. One of the allegations was that B.P. ripped out the victim’s hair. Another allegation was that B.P. bit the victim on the face. There appeared to be a lot of corroborating evidence. When the police arrived, they found hair in the hallway and a bite mark on the victim's cheek. But after a two-day trial, Kevin secured a full acquittal for his client. 

In R. v. T.T., Kevin’s client was charged with a violent domestic assault. Although T.T. had been found guilty of assaulting the same complainant only a few years prior, Kevin managed to secure a withdrawal of all charges for T.T.

In R. v. E.B., Kevin brought a bail review at the Superior Court of Justice. Kevin’s client had a record with over 65 convictions, many of them for breaching court orders. To complicate matters further, E.B. did not have any potential sureties. Although the Crown Attorney was strongly opposed to E.B.’s release, the judge agreed with Kevin’s submissions and E.B. was released on bail without a surety.

In R. v. S.A., Kevin brought a bail review application at the Superior Court of Justice. Kevin worked out a consent release with the Crown Attorney, which allowed S.A. to spend the holidays with his loved ones rather than in jail. 

In R. v. K.P., Kevin's client was charged with possession of a weapon (a machete) dangerous to the public peace, carrying a concealed weapon, assault (domestic), uttering death threats, and mischief under $5,000. Three different witnesses gave statements where they claimed to have seen K.P. with the machete. The matter was scheduled for a 2-day trial. After the first witness testified, Kevin spoke with the Crown attorney and negotiated a full withdrawal of the charges in exchange for Kevin's client completing a one-day anger management course.

In R. v. N.T., Kevin's client was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, and assault. If convicted, Kevin's client would have been looking at a penitentiary sentence. At the preliminary hearing, Kevin challenged the Crown Attorney's attempt to admit the complainant's statement through s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code. After a two day preliminary inquiry, the Crown stayed the charges and N.T. was free to go.


*Please Note: Past Success Does Not Ensure Future Success*