Karen Lau-Po-Hung

Karen Lau-Po-Hung is an accomplished trial lawyer with a distinguished record of success in jury trials and complex criminal litigation. She has defended virtually every type of criminal charge, with particular expertise in serious violent offences and large-scale drug prosecutions.

Karen’s trial record speaks for itself. She has secured acquittals for clients in numerous jury trials, including first- and second-degree murder prosecutions, and has also obtained acquittals in judge-alone murder trials. Her advocacy has taken her before every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

In addition to her busy trial practice, Karen is an Adjunct Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. She teaches upper-year students in two criminal law specialist courses: Criminal Procedure and Advocacy and The Criminal Trial. The Advocacy course focuses on the written preparation and argument of complex trial motions and is designed for students pursuing careers in litigation. Karen is also a respected speaker and educator within the legal community. She has been invited to present at Legal Aid Ontario, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (including both the Annual and Recent Call Conferences), the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers, and Women Educating Women in Law & Life (WELL).

She has frequently been invited to share her experience in litigation, including conducting jury trials, cross-examining police officers, and preparing clients to testify. Even early in her career, Karen was called upon to teach other lawyers and speak on advanced advocacy techniques. Following her participation in a WELL panel, Karen was invited to join the organization’s leadership committee. Since then, she has organized, moderated, and participated in numerous educational panels featuring Superior Court Judges, Ontario Court Judges, and Senior Counsel on advanced and nuanced legal topics.

Karen was also a member of the Podcast Committee and Women’s Committee for the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers. A formidable litigator, Karen approaches every case with the understanding that her clients are entrusting her with their lives. She is relentless in ensuring that each client is heard, treated fairly, and afforded the strongest possible defence. Her preparation, precision, and courtroom presence have made her a trusted and respected advocate.

R v JB

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Possession of a Prohibited Loaded Firearm

Facts:

Police executed a search warrant at Mr. JB’s residence. A loaded firearm equipped with a laser

and oversized magazine containing fifteen rounds of ammunition was located in Mr. JB’s room

alongside his personal belongings.

R v AH

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Importation of Cocaine

Facts:

Mr. AH was stopped and searched at Pearson International Airport upon returning to Canada

from Jamaica. Border officials discovered multiple kilograms of cocaine concealed within his

luggage.

R v SM

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted on Robbery Charge by Directed Verdict; Mistrial Declared on Theft Over

Charge

Charges: Robbery and Theft Over

Facts:

Ms. SM was charged in relation to an alleged inside-job robbery. The Crown alleged she opened

a safe immediately before her boyfriend entered the bank in disguise. Surveillance footage

showed SM setting a timer approximately twenty seconds before his entry.

R v JW

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Trafficking Heroin

Facts:

JW was charged with trafficking heroin to an undercover police officer. Through extensive

cross-examination, Ms. Lau-Po-Hung demonstrated significant credibility concerns with the

testimony of the undercover officer and members of the Toronto Drug Squad.

R v TM

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm

Facts:

TM was originally convicted at a prior trial where Ms. Lau-Po-Hung was not counsel. Following

a successful appeal and new trial order, TM retained Ms. Lau-Po-Hung.

The allegations arose from a road-rage incident during which the complainant exited his vehicle

to confront TM and sustained serious injuries. Through cross-examination of key witnesses and

expert evidence, Ms. Lau-Po-Hung successfully advanced the defences of self-defence and

necessity. She was able to demonstrate that the expert witness made numerous errors.

R v DC

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine; Proceeds of Crime

Facts:

Police located a significant quantity of cocaine, drug paraphernalia, cash, and multiple cellular

phones within DC’s residence.

R v MH

Court: Superior Court (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Possession of a Loaded Firearm

Facts:

Following a traffic stop for a Highway Traffic Act offence, police located a firearm underneath

MH’s seat. Conflicting police evidence became a central issue at trial.

R v TT

Court: Superior Court (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine

Facts:

TT was alleged to have participated in the sale of kilograms of cocaine. Through a detailed

review of surveillance and police evidence, Ms. Lau-Po-Hung exposed significant

inconsistencies with the police officers and called defence witnesses to testify.

R v HB

Charges: Sexual Assault (x4); Sexual Interference (x4)

Facts:

HB was accused of sexually assaulting all his underage daughters. Each had different

accounts of the abuse they endured. Ms. Lau Po Hung prepared a defence from the very

early stages doing significant investigative work including interviewing witnesses,

obtaining videos, and social media accounts that contradicted their versions. She was able

to establish many lies. This defence was hard to mount as multi-count complainants usually.

She was able to convince a jury that there was some collusion and motive to lie. After being

confronted by Ms. Lau Po Hung after hours of cross-examination, one witness agreed to

lying under oath on three separate occasions.

Court: Superior Court (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted of Sexual Assault x4 and Sexual Interference x 4

R v RB

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: Second-Degree Murder

Facts:

RB and three co-accused were alleged to have participated in a fatal stabbing. Despite DNA

evidence and allegations from co-accused individuals, the defence demonstrated that another

accused was responsible for the fatal attack. The other 3 accused were convicted.

R v FA

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: First-Degree Murder

Facts:

FA was alleged to be the shooter in a daylight homicide on a major Toronto roadway.

Surveillance evidence placed FA in the vehicle used in the offence, and a co-accused testified

against him.

Following an exhaustive review of disclosure materials, including cell phone records and

surveillance evidence, the defence established an alternative perpetrator theory and called

evidence relating to a deceased third-party suspect.

Notable:

The co-accused driver was convicted. This matter proceeded after a successful mistrial and

severance application arising from late disclosure.

R v KA

Court: Superior Court of Justice (Jury Trial)

Result: Acquitted

Charges: First-Degree Murder

Facts:

KA was accused of shooting the victim 17 times including a contact shot in the neck. There were

two shooters and two firearms used. The prosecution’s theory is he participated in the murder

with his partner in crime and they were upset at the deceased for not making money in the sex

trade. KA was arrested 2 days later with the murder weapon (reloaded) on him. The defence was

that it was the crown’s star witness who was the perpetrator– the girlfriend of the other shooter –

she had every motive to kill and falsely implicate KA to save herself. The defence demonstrated

that she pre-emptively fabricated explanations for potential forensic evidence and provided

evidence that only a shooter would know..

Additional Notable Results

Karen has also secured acquittals, withdrawals, and favourable resolutions in numerous homicide

prosecutions, including:

• R v T – Complete withdrawal of murder charge

• R v SC – Complete withdrawal of murder charge

• R v JD – Acquittal following judge-alone murder trial

• R v SS – Murder charge withdrawn; resolved to assault offences

• R v R – Murder charge withdrawn; plea to manslaughter following preliminary inquiry

• R v L – Murder charge withdrawn; resolved to manslaughter following preliminary inquiry

• R v CL – Murder charge withdrawn; resolved to manslaughter