Goodman Berman, Barristers is comprised of experienced criminal lawyers with over 25 years of combined experience. While located in Toronto, our practice extends to much of south central Ontario.

Our law firm has successfully defended clients charged with a range of offences from Murder to Domestic Assault to Impaired driving and Theft Under. We believe that all criminal offences should be treated with professionalism, diligence, and above all, hard work.

What sets our firm apart from other law offices, is our commitment to our clients. The Criminal Justice System is a scary and at times slow process. Being in the dark or not knowing what is happening can often create anxiety and nervousness. We strive to keep our clients in the know and keep them up to date. Our lawyers are accessible through phone, text, email, zoom and Whatsapp.

Our office has a proven track record of trial experience. Part of our success is based on our client’s complete understanding of the charges that they face. Knowing all aspects of the case and being well-informed of the case against you is the first step in determining the right defence that is to be used and how to execute it.

Both Mr. Goodman and Mr. Berman have mentored many newly called members of the Bar and assisted many to go on to become lawyers in private practice. Being able to teach and impart knowledge to others is the best way to understanding the law. It is that guidance that has helped when communicating with clients who have never had an experience with the Justice System.

Throughout the history of Goodman Berman, Barristers, the lawyers have helped many clients of all cultures. The lawyers have assisted people whose first language is not English through the use of our many interpreters that assist with such barriers. Our office is sensitive to cultural issues as well as LGBTQ issues that may arise and are committed to making all people feel welcome and equal.

Our lawyers appear in all levels of trial courts in Ontario and have a wealth of experience defending every type of criminal offence. As a growing firm, we are always open to receiving applications for lawyers, articling students and summer law students. Lawyers can take advantage of our resources, while our students are presented with the opportunity to work closely with counsel in order to gain the skills necessary to successfully practice criminal law.

R. v. P.P., [2020] O.J. No. 4491 SCJ

The office successfully brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have the detention order reviewed. The accused was ultimately released on bail on serious gun charges.


R. v. K.J. 2020 (unreported) OCJ

An application was made to have the accused released from custody on serious gun offences. The accused was released from custody.


R. v. D.B. 2019 (unreported) OCJ

The accused was charged with accessory after the fact to murder. This was a historic charge that allegedly took place almost 30 years prior to the charge. After the preliminary hearing the charge was withdrawn.


R. v. D.G. 2018 (unreported) OCJ

The accused was charged with impaired and over 80. The office successfully brought a Charter Application to challenge the delay in the timing of the breath tests. The client was found not guilty.


R. v. M.Z., [2018] O.J. No. 6874 SCJ

The accused was charged with serious offences relating to the importation of 1.3 kilos of heroin. Theses specific charges if found guilty would have resulted in 14 years of custody. The office successfully conducted a trial in the Superior Court of Justice and the accused was acquitted.


R. v. M.V. 2018 (unreported) OCJ

Trial in the Ontario Court of Justice for charges of impaired and Over 80. Counsel brought a stay argument based on charter issues of not having had the ability to contact counsel. The charges were withdrawn on the day of trial.


R. v. A.H.P. 2017 (unreported) OCJ

The accused and co-accused were charged with a home invasion robbery and gun offences. Video was seized from the residence where the robbery had taken place. Following a 10 day trial the accused was found not guilty.


R. v. A.A.R. 2017 (unreported) OCJ

Client charged with impaired and Over 80. After losing at the Court of Appeal, the accused retained the office and the charges were ultimately withdrawn before another trial was scheduled.


R. v. G.E., [2016] O.J. No. 6860 OCJ

The accused was charged with serious CDSA offences. The office conducted a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was successful in defending the charges and the accused was acquitted.


R. v. D.M.C., [2015] O.J. No. 1324 SCJ

The accused was charged with a sexual assault in the context of a domestic relationship. The office conducted a trial in the Superior Court of Justice and was able to successfully defend those charges and a not guilty verdict was the result.


R. v. R.S., [2015] O.J. No. 7212 SCJ

The accused was charged with a sexual interference, a serious offence that not only brings with it the stigma of the offence but a prison sentence if found guilty. The office conducted a trial in the Superior Court of Justice and the client was able to maintain his innocence and found not guilty.


R. v. D.K, [2013] O.J. No. 6286 OCJ

The accused was charged with both Criminal Code and CDSA offences. Typically these types of charges would result in a detention order. The office was successful in getting the accused released on bail terms.


R. v. E.K.H., [2012] O.J. No. 1128 SCJ

The office represented two accused on charges of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching. These charges bring with it the stigma of the offence itself and a lengthy prison sentence if found guilty. The office conducted a lengthy trial in the Superior Court of Justice and was able to secure a not guilty verdict for both accused.


R. v. J.A.R., [2011] O.J. No. 1330 OCJ

The office represented one of three co-accused in the Ontario Court of Justice and brought a successful Charter application based on serious search issues involving the accused.


R. v. T.W., [2009] O.J. No. 1356 SCJ

The office defended the accused on the charges of sexual assault in the context of a domestic relationship. The trial was heard in the Superior Court of Justice and the accused was found not guilty.