× Home Our Services   About Us   Recent Successes Testimonials News And Videos   Contact Us 中文 فارسی
Contact Our Firm

Perjury, Public Mischief, Mischief to Property and Breach of Court Orders

Book Your Free Consultation

The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.

Contact Our Firm

 

Perjury, Public Mischief, Mischief to Property and Breach of Court Orders

Rex v B.J. (2026)

B.J. retained Ms. Condello to defend him on six charges of Criminal Mischief damage to property for writing in permanent ink at a bus station.  The client saw graffiti of a swastika and wrote next it “Jesus is Lord”.   Police identified the client and determined that the client was also responsible for graffiti of swastikas.  The Crown screened the matter as a hate crime and was seeking jail.  Ms. Condello was able to show through circumstantial evidence that the client was not the person responsible for the hate crime writings and was trying to counter the hate writing with Christian values and not hate.  The client paid restitution for damages caused by his writing only and the charges were all withdrawn.

Rex v. Z.K. (2026)

Charge of Fail to Comply with Probation against Z.K. withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.   Z.K. was charged with failing to comply with his probation order which prohibited him from having contact with his spouse except with her written revokable consent.  The underlying charge to the probation order was a serious domestic assault charge which had several terms limiting the type of contact Z.K. could have with his spouse as well as his children.  Additionally, Z.K. had previously had a sexual assault charge also involving his spouse withdrawn by the Crown.  Given the serious history, the Crown was originally seeking a custodial sentence for the new breach.  As a result, the matter was set down for trial. Prior to trial, Michael Bury spent considerable time engaged with the assigned Crown explaining that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the case as both parties wanted to reconcile.  After lengthy discussions leading up to and including the day of trial, Michael Bury persuaded the Crown to withdraw the charges.

Rex v. J.M. (2022)

Charge of Public Mischief withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket court. The client is a new immigrant to Canada from China. A friend advised him that he could earn money by signing a document as a co-signer for other people and guaranteed him there was no liability. J.M. naively signed the document without reading it. Several months later, the bank sent him a letter asking him for payment pursuant to the letter signed that guaranteed a loan. The scheme was a fraud of course and J.M. was unwittingly caught up in the scheme. The bank called police and J.M. was charged with public mischief. J.M. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. Mariya and Daisy obtained detailed background information on J.M. and conducted a meeting with the Crown to explain the role of his friend and the gullibility of the client. Given his recent arrival in Canada, the small amount of the fraud, and that J.M. clearly was a dupe, the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. P.M. (2022)

The client had plead guilty to one count of Luring with another law firm in 2013. P.M. entered into a Section 161 Prohibition Order that prohibited him from attending a number of public places and from any contact with children. The duration of the Order was 10 years. P.M. was to have a child with his wife. P.M. retained Mariya Protsenko to vary the Prohibition Order to allow him to be with his child and to take his child to public places. Mariya drafted the Application and the client’s Affidavit. There were a number of challenges faced as P.M.’s charge pre-dated electronic system and the Judge who signed the original Order left the jurisdiction. However, Mariya was relentless and accomplished getting a hearing date for the client before the arrival of the child. After numerous corresponding e-mails with the Crown Attorney and a court appearance, Section 161 Prohibition Order was successfully varied.

R. v. J.B. (2021)

J.B. plead guilty to a charge of child pornography. J.B. had a probation order and prohibition order issued that included conditions not to be at locations where children attend such as school, park, community centre. J.B. thought to vary both orders to be able to attend extra-curricular activities with his child. J.B. hired Mariya Protsenko. Mariya drafted a Notice of Application, attached a positive report from the psychiatrist who J.B. had been seeing and got the support of the probation officer. The Crown Attorney opposed the variation. On an Application hearing, Mariya skillfully asked the questions from the probation officer, made well prepared and comprehensive submissions and addressed all the concerns of Her Honour. As a result, the variation was granted and J.B. can attend extra-curricular activities with his child.

Regina v. D.W. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Mischief Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Newmarket. The client was in a dispute with a business partner where significant funds were lost and D.W. was never informed of the sale of assets and the loss. The client lost him mind and pushed the complainant and smashed his car window. Joseph Neuberger was retained as criminal lawyer to defend the case. Joseph Neuberger disclosed the financial transaction details and correspondence which essentially amounted to a fraud. A negotiated resolution was worked out where the client took 10 hours of therapy for conflict management, and paid for the damage to the window. The charges were then withdrawn.

Regina v. J.B. (2021)

Charges of Breach of Recognizance and Assault Resist Arrest withdrawn at early stages of proceedings. J.B. had been on a peace bond and unfortunately suffered from mental health issues and comorbid substance use disorders. J.B. had consumed alcohol that caused a relapse and police had arrested J.B. and charged him with Breach and Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer and immediately obtain all related medical records, obtained an updated report from the physician and wrote the Crown that J.B. had tried endlessly to attach to a mental health social worker and community based psychiatrist during the pandemic but could not get any assistance. As a result, J.B. had been isolated and but for this one event, was doing extremely well managing his medication and sobriety without little supports. As such, the Crown immediately withdrew the charges.

R. v. R.P. (2020)

Client was charged with breach of a section 810 peace bond. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on this charge. Mr. Navarrete, with the help of the client, was able to put together various materials including GPS data of 200 metres of the complainant and the provided a package of defence evidence to the Crown. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge against the client at the courthouse in Newmarket. The charge was a fabrication.

R. v. D.G. (2020)

The client was charged with impersonating a police officer for driving an old decommissioned police cruiser. The client retained John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete put together various materials including pictures of similar vehicles on the road including campus security and ex-copper type cars. Mr. Navarrete also provided the Highway Traffic Act legislation to the Crown to show that no offence was committed under that legislation and that the client never advised anyone he was a police officer. All criminal charges were withdrawn at the courthouse in Oshawa.

Regina v. K.Z. (2020)

Charges of Impersonation, Obstruct Peace Officer, and various Highway Traffic Act charges withdrawn and pre-trial with the Crown, Newmarket. K.Z. was driving while suspended and was pulled over by police. The client misidentified himself several times before telling the officer his real name. Police charged K.Z. with multiple offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After a pre-trial with the Crown a proposal was made for the client to undertake some community service and the charges would be withdrawn. After the community service was completed, all charges were withdrawn.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.

CONTACT INFORMATION


PHONE: (416) 364-3111
FAX: (416) 364-3271