Markham Attempted Murder Lawyer

Home › Markham Criminal Defence › Markham Attempted Murder Lawyer

A Markham shooting or stabbing where the person survives does not produce a small charge. It produces a life-maximum prosecution, and by the time anyone is arrested, York Regional Police have often spent weeks assembling the file. Then the whole case narrows to one question: can the Crown prove an actual intent to kill? Not rage. Not recklessness. Not an intent to wound. This page explains how the file gets built, what the law demands, and where these prosecutions crack. Kazandji Law defends attempted murder charges across York Region: 647-588-3234, answered around the clock.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

The file they build before they knock

Attempted murder charges rarely arrive fast. When a shooting or stabbing in Markham leaves someone alive, York Regional Police treat the scene the way they would treat a homicide, and the file gets built with the same architecture: scene forensics and ballistics, a canvass of residential and commercial cameras, cell tower and phone-record production, and witness statements taken while memories are fresh. York has a camera culture that works against suspects; YRP even maintains a voluntary security-camera registry that speeds up the video canvass. Specialized investigators and district Criminal Investigations Bureau detectives run these files, and for Markham the processing anchor is #5 District at 8700 McCowan Road.

Which means there is usually a window, days or weeks, between the event and the arrest. People waste that window in two ways. They talk: to police who call with friendly questions, to friends whose messages end up screenshotted, to the internet. Or they do nothing, assuming that no arrest means no case. Both are mistakes. If investigators have contacted you, or people around you are being interviewed, that is the moment to retain counsel, not after the knock. In that window a lawyer can field police contact, protect you from an ill-advised interview, arrange a surrender if a charge is coming, and start preserving the things that help you: your own phone data, receipts, clothing, the names of people who can place you elsewhere.

And understand what the file is being built to prove. Not just that violence happened, and not just that you were there. The Crown's destination is a specific mental state, and everything in the file, the weapon, the wound placement, the words before and after, will be argued as a window into it.

The one word the whole case turns on

Attempted murder under s. 239 punishes attempting, by any means, to commit murder. The maximum is life imprisonment in every case. But the mental element is where these prosecutions live and die, and it is stricter than most people, including some police officers, assume.

Sit with the oddity of that for a moment: on the mental element, attempted murder can be harder to prove than murder itself. Rage is not intent to kill. Recklessness is not intent to kill. A savage beating, a bottle swung in a parking lot, even a stabbing the attacker knew could be fatal, none of it suffices unless the Crown can prove the purpose was death. That gap between what happened and what was intended is the defence's home ground.

Since intent is invisible, the Crown builds it by inference. The classic exhibits: the kind of weapon and how it was used, the number and placement of wounds or shots, what was said before, during and after, whether the attack was pressed home or broken off. Each inference has a counter. A single wound and a retreat cut against a settled purpose to kill. Chaotic group violence muddies whose intent was whose. Words shouted in a fight are notoriously cheap evidence of purpose. Cross-examination on wound path and trajectory has rescued more attempted-murder defendants than any speech to a jury.

What an attempt actually requires: section 24

The second building block is s. 24. A person commits an attempt when, intending to commit an offence, they do or omit to do anything for the purpose of carrying out that intention, whether or not success was even possible in the circumstances. Impossibility is no defence: the jammed gun, the missed shot, the victim who was somewhere else entirely, none of that answers the charge.

The line that matters is the one between mere preparation and an act that goes beyond it, and s. 24(2) makes that a question of law for the judge. Buying a weapon, driving to an address, thinking ugly thoughts: preparation. At some point conduct crosses into acts done for the purpose of carrying out the intention, and where that point sits in a given case is a genuinely litigable issue, especially in files built on plans that never reached their target.

Put ss. 24 and 239 together and the Crown's full burden reads like this: a proven intent to kill a particular person, plus an act beyond mere preparation toward that death. Both elements, beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of the defences on this page are just organized ways of denying one or the other.

Bail at Newmarket, and the murder contrast

Here is a distinction that changes the first month of your life. Attempted murder is not on the s. 469 list. Section 469(d) captures attempts only for the offences in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (vii), and murder is item (viii), so attempted murder stays with the ordinary bail regime. Your bail hearing happens before the Ontario Court of Justice at the Newmarket courthouse, 50 Eagle Street West, the OCJ courthouse serving York Region. The OCJ also runs weekend and statutory-holiday bail courts, and sureties can attend by audio-video under the OCJ bail practice direction.

Either way, preparation wins these hearings: a residence, sureties with documented finances and a real supervision plan, conditions that answer the Crown's specific concerns. In Toronto the same hearing would run through the Toronto Regional Bail Centre at 2201 Finch Avenue West; York Region has no separate bail centre, which means your bail file and your trial file live at one address. Release plans and surety preparation are covered in depth on our Markham bail lawyer page.

The penalty ladder, and the minimum that survived Bill C-5

Sentencing exposure under s. 239 depends entirely on how the offence was committed:

Scenario	Minimum	Maximum
Restricted or prohibited firearm used, or any firearm used for a criminal organization (s. 239(1)(a))	5 years; 7 years for a second or subsequent offence	Life
Any other firearm used (s. 239(1)(a.1))	4 years	Life
No firearm (s. 239(1)(b))	None	Life

Prior convictions under s. 239 and the related firearm-discharge sections count when deciding whether a case is a second or subsequent offence for the seven-year minimum (s. 239(2)). And in a no-firearm case the Code sets no floor at all, which makes sentencing submissions a real battleground rather than an afterthought: the statutory range runs from the lowest sentences known to law up to life, and where a case lands inside it is argued, not assumed.

The counts that travel with section 239

An attempted-murder information almost never has one line on it. The companions matter, because they are both the Crown's insurance and the defence's exits.

• Discharging a firearm with intent (s. 244). Maximum 14 years; minimums of 5 or 7 years apply only where a restricted or prohibited firearm or a criminal-organization link is proven. Its former any-other-case minimum was repealed by Bill C-5.
• Discharging a firearm with recklessness (s. 244.2). Intentionally firing into or at a place knowing or reckless that someone is there. Same penalty structure; this is the section whose former four-year minimum Hills struck down.
• Aggravated assault (s. 268). Wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering life. Maximum 14 years. In stabbing and beating cases this is the natural landing spot when the intent-to-kill proof fails, and many prosecutions resolve exactly there. Assault-spectrum charges in York Region are covered on our Markham assault offence lawyer page.

Read cynically, the companion counts tell you what the Crown itself fears about its intent evidence. Read strategically, they map the resolution paths: a life-maximum allegation that ends as a 14-year-maximum conviction is a different life afterward. The negotiating leverage comes from making the intent gap undeniable.

The route through 50 Eagle Street West

Every stage of a York Region attempted-murder prosecution runs through the Newmarket courthouse. First appearances and case management happen in the Ontario Court of Justice, and much of the routine list work now proceeds through virtual case-management courts, so counsel can appear by video while you keep working in Markham. Interpreter services are available for proceedings when needed.

Because attempted murder carries a life maximum, well over the 14-year threshold in s. 535, the defence can request a preliminary inquiry. In a case that will turn on inference, hearing the key witnesses under oath before trial is often worth the added months, and sometimes it reshapes the case entirely. The accused also elects the trial court: the OCJ, or the Superior Court of Justice with a judge alone or a judge and jury. Elect up, and the jury trial happens in the same building, upstairs.

The whole route runs against the clock set by R. v. Jordan: net delay beyond 18 months for an OCJ trial, or 30 months for a Superior Court trial (including an OCJ trial after a preliminary inquiry), is presumptively unreasonable once defence delay is subtracted. Camera-heavy, multi-device files generate disclosure slowly, and a defence that tracks the delay math from day one keeps a stay application alive as leverage and as remedy.

There is a practical mercy in that geography. Markham has no criminal courthouse, so everything already lives up the road in Newmarket, and one address means one set of security lines, one Crown office, one place your surety learns to find. Clients hold jobs through these prosecutions. Families plan around a single commute or none at all when the appearance is virtual. It sounds small until you are eighteen months into a case, and then it is not small at all.

Where these prosecutions crack

The intent gap. The centre of gravity. If the Crown cannot move the jury from injury to purpose-to-kill, the conviction, if any, lands on a lesser count. Everything from wound path to the attacker breaking off the assault feeds this argument, and it is the reason so many attempted-murder files end as aggravated assault or discharge convictions.

Identification and alibi. Night-time video, hooded figures, cross-racial identification, jailhouse tips: shooting files are ID files. Continuity of the video record, the quality of the images, and the gap between a clothing description and a face all get litigated. A plate or a phone in an area is not a person with a gun.

Self-defence. Section 34 applies to attempted murder as it does to any offence of violence: a reasonable belief that force or a threat of force was being used, a defensive purpose, and a reasonable response measured through the s. 34(2) factors, including the history between the parties, weapons, relative size and capability, and proportionality. Confrontations that end in a stabbing often began as something the complainant started.

The Charter. These files are assembled from searches: houses, cars, phones, production orders for cell records. Every one of those steps has rules, and evidence obtained in breach can be excluded. Statements taken in violation of the right to counsel, and delay beyond the Jordan ceilings, round out the litigation map.

Intoxication. Attempted murder is a specific-intent offence, so evidence of serious impairment bears directly on whether an intent to kill was actually formed. It is an argument about proof, not an excuse, and it pairs naturally with the intent gap.

If it ends in a conviction

Sentencing follows the ladder set out above: minimums only in the firearm branches, a life maximum everywhere, and in no-firearm cases a range that is genuinely open and genuinely argued. The sentencing record, psychological and medical reports where they explain, employment and family evidence, rehabilitation since the offence, is built the same way the trial was: deliberately.

Beyond the jail number, a conviction under s. 239 triggers a mandatory weapons-prohibition order under s. 109, at least ten years for non-restricted firearms and life for prohibited or restricted weapons, with life for everything on a repeat. The Crown will typically seek the usual ancillary orders that follow serious violence convictions, and a life-maximum conviction carries lasting weight for criminal records, travel and immigration status. Those collateral consequences deserve advice of their own before any resolution is signed, not after.

When attempted murder is the wrong count

Some attempted-murder charges should never have carried that name. Charging decisions get made early, on incomplete files, in the heat of a serious injury, and the most serious available label has a way of being the one chosen. The system has correction points, and using them is part of the defence.

The first is Crown screening. Prosecutors reassess counts as disclosure completes, and a focused defence submission, pointing at the wound evidence, the breaking-off of the attack, the absence of any words of intent, can move a file from s. 239 to aggravated assault before trial strategy ever hardens. The second is the preliminary inquiry: where the evidence cannot support the intent element, the inquiry is the place to expose that under oath, and counts have a way of narrowing on the other side of it. The third is trial itself, where the included and companion counts give a jury an honest landing spot short of the life-maximum verdict.

None of that happens by default. It happens when someone does the unglamorous work of showing, piece by piece, that the evidence proves violence but not purpose. That distinction is the entire difference between this page and our homicide page, and it is where a properly defended file usually ends up being decided.

What the first month usually looks like

However the arrest happens, negotiated surrender or a knock at dawn, the first month of a York Region attempted-murder file tends to follow a pattern, and knowing it reduces the panic:

1. Processing. For Markham files, through #5 District at 8700 McCowan Road: booking, fingerprints, and the decision about whether you are held for bail.
2. The bail hearing at Newmarket. If a firearm is alleged, the onus is on you (s. 515(6)(a)(vii)), so the plan has to be ready before the hearing, not sketched in the hallway. Sureties, residence, curfew, device conditions: built like a case, because it is one.
3. First disclosure. The synopsis and officer notes come early. The heavy exhibits, video compilations, ballistics, phone extractions, medical records, arrive in waves for months. Video files are routinely the slowest and the most important.
4. The quiet work. While disclosure trickles, the defence preserves its own evidence: your phone data, your injuries photographed, the names of everyone present, the clothes worn that night. By the time the Crown's file is complete, the defence file should be too.
5. First strategy conversations. Crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials put the first honest read on the table: what the Crown thinks it can prove about intent, and what it fears it cannot.

Nothing in that month is wasted time if it is used. Most of what goes wrong in attempted-murder defences goes wrong here, quietly, through statements given, evidence lost and bail plans improvised.

The five questions that decide the strategy

Strip away the procedure and every s. 239 file we take gets interrogated the same way:

• What does the video actually show? Not what the synopsis says it shows. Frame by frame, with timestamps and continuity checked, because the difference between a hood and a face is the difference between trial and plea.
• What does the wound evidence really support? Trajectory, depth, number, location. The Crown will read intent into it; the defence needs its own qualified reading before deciding anything.
• Where does the bail fight sit? Ordinary Crown onus, or firearm reverse onus? The answer sets the preparation timeline and how much of the first weeks belong to the release plan.
• What is the honest end-point? A triable identity or self-defence case, an intent fight worth running to verdict, or an included-offence resolution that trades a life-maximum exposure for a 14-year-maximum count. Files drift when nobody names the destination.
• What Charter litigation does the file support? Phone searches, house warrants, statements, delay. Exclusion motions change verdicts, and they also change negotiating positions long before trial.

Ask those five questions early and the case stops being a fog. The answers get revisited as disclosure lands, but the frame holds from the first meeting to the last day of trial.

Three Markham fact patterns, one question

The files change, but the shape of the fight rarely does. Three patterns cover most of the attempted-murder work we see out of Markham, and each one funnels into the same intent question.

The targeted shooting. Shots at a house, a car or a plaza, a complainant who survives, and an investigation built almost entirely from video and phone records. The defence centre of gravity is usually identification: whether the person in the footage is the person in the courtroom, and whether towers and timestamps actually put the accused anywhere that matters. Intent runs second, because firing a gun at someone invites the inference; who fired it is the contested ground.

The fight that escalated. A confrontation, often between people who know each other, that ends with a knife or a bottle and a wound that could have killed. Here identity is conceded and intent is everything. One wound, a chaotic scramble, an attacker who stopped and fled: that is aggravated-assault territory, not proof of a purpose to kill, and these files resolve on that logic more often than they go to verdict.

The domestic allegation with a weapon. The hardest files emotionally and the ones where history matters most, in both directions. The s. 34(2) factors expressly reach the history of the relationship, including past force and threats, which means the account of who feared whom gets litigated with evidence rather than assumption. Bail conditions in these cases reorganize households overnight, and moving them quickly is part of the defence, not an afterthought.

Why people charged in Markham call Kazandji Law

Attempted murder files are inference cases, and inference cases are won by the side that works harder on the details. Fadi Matthew Kazandji is senior defence counsel who keeps carriage of these files personally: the video gets watched frame by frame, the wound evidence gets expert eyes, the intent theory gets attacked at the preliminary inquiry and again at trial. No script, no hand-offs.

The Thornhill office at 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310 anchors our York Region work, minutes from Markham, with the head office at 180 John St., Unit 320 in Toronto and offices in North York and Oakville. If your matter is in the city, our Toronto attempted murder lawyers page covers the Toronto route; where the allegation is that someone died, start with our Markham homicide lawyer page. Recent results are collected on our case successes page, and the full list of York Region practice areas lives on the Markham criminal defence hub.

Questions we hear about attempted murder charges

This page is legal information for people facing charges in Markham and York Region, current to July 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Statutes, case law and court practices change, and every case turns on its own facts. For advice about your situation, call Kazandji Law at 647-588-3234. Kazandji Law, 180 John St., Unit 320, Toronto; Thornhill office: 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310.