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
P.M. found not guilty following a trial on a charge of Sexual Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice, Kitchener. P.M. and V.A. were involved in a brief boyfriend girlfriend relationship. During the relationship, the complainant started demonstrating several behaviours which caused P.M. serious concerns about any future together with the complainant. On one occasion, while at P.M.’s home with other family members in close proximity, P.M. and V.A. had an intimate interaction in the basement. P.M. was not sexually experienced. V.A. was sexually aggressive towards P.M. and initiated activity which P.M. was uncomfortable engaging in, especially with other family members nearby. P.M. was afraid to end the relationship because of V.A.’s erratic behaviour. Ultimately, V.A. decided to breakup with P.M. by publicly announcing that she had decided she was a lesbian which was not true. This caused significant hardship for P.M. at the school they both attended and he was bullied by other students as a result. P.M. decided to date another mutual friend and ended contact with V.A. V.A. found out and was angry at him, even though they had broken up. As a result, she decided to contact the police and have sexual assault charges laid against P.M. P.M. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to defend him. P.M. decided to take the matter to trial. Reliability and credibility were the central issues at trial. The complainant was cross-examined at length by Michael Bury regarding the events leading up to and including the allegations. While the trial judge found V.A. to be credible overall, her lack of recall on very important details following the cross-examination did ultimately raise both credibility and reliability concerns which the court could not ignore. Applying the relevant legal principles, the trial judge found P.M. Not Guilty as the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Historical charge of indecent assault withdrawn at the second day of a two-day trial. The complainant, in his sixties, alleged indecent assault by his cousin of the same age during the 1970s, claiming a two-year period of intermittent abuse when both boys were in their early teens. The complainant originally advised police that the abuse began when he was twelve years of age. But during examination-in-chief he suggested the abuse began much earlier. Following the complainant’s testimony, Mr. Whitfield raised a jurisdictional issue: that the accused, on the revised timeline, could not have been lawfully charged with a criminal offence under the governing youth legislation. The Crown withdrew the charge.
Client acquitted of one count of sexual assault following a three-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A previous charge of criminal harassment was withdrawn for lack of evidence. The complainant made historical allegations against her ex-boyfriend, including sexual intercourse at a family event where she was too intoxicated to consent. Mr. Whitfield was retained, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mr. Whitfield went directly to trial and presented material inconsistencies in the Complainant’s account of her level of intoxication, and between the versions of events she recounted to the police versus her testimony on the stand at trial. Mr. Whitfield also identified serious reliability concerns with the complainant’s evidence: she was unable to recall many details of the alleged sexual assault due to a patchwork memory and agreed it was possible she may have uttered words of encouragement during the periods she could not remember. The accused also testified. The trial judge found his evidence to be largely unchallenged, and, in the reasons for acquittal, cited serious shortcomings in the complainant’s credibility and reliability. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of sex assault.
Charges of Sex Assault and Voyeurism withdrawn prior to commencing trial, Newmarket. The complainant and Z.C. had a relationship for some two years. They broke up and about a year and half later when his entertainment career was blossoming and he entered a new relationship; the complainant went to the police and made historical sexual assault allegations. She also complained that he coercively controlled her and video recorded sexual interactions without her without her consent. Z.C. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. A cell phone extraction was completed with the client’s phone and we obtained a plethora of relevant messages undermining the complainant’s narrative and also giving rise to a motive to fabricate. During the process, the complainant began launching motions in the Ontario Court of Justice for updates on the prosecution and why Z.C.’s cell phone was not searched for a video or videos. The situation was that the police request for warrant to search the phone was denied and the phone was returned to the client. The complainant alleged in her motions that there was improper conduct on the part of the police, Crown and defence. The defence filed an extensive 276/278 Pre-Application to admit at trial on the sex assault charge other sexual history evidence and a large volume of messages that undermined the complainant’s narrative and demonstrated that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, the Crown withdrew the charges.
Six Counts of Sexual Assault against S.E. withdrawn by the Crown due to an unreasonable delay Charter application brought by Michael Bury before trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. S.E. was charged with several serious sexual assault allegations involving a former intimate partner. The Crown was seeking a custodial sentence and various ancillary orders including registration with the sex offender registry and DNA samples if S.E. were found guilty. The matter had a lengthy history of delay with a significant portion of delay attributable to the Crown as well as significant institutional delay. Michael Bury spent considerable time assessing the delay and conducting recent caselaw research to determine the prospects of making a successful stay application argument before the scheduled trial date. The Crown reviewed the stay application before trial and agreed that S.E.’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and withdrew the charges for this reason.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant and M.A. were married and lived together. During an argument between the couple, the Complainant claimed that she was trying to leave the apartment, however, M.A. closed the door to prevent her from leaving, grabbed her by her arm, and pushed her to the ground. She alleged that he stood over her and clawed at her face with his hands resulting in injuries to the complainant’s face and bruising to her leg as a result of the fall. The Complainant contacted the police and M.A. got arrested for assault as a result of the allegations. M.A. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. After reviewing disclosure and considerable negotiations with the crown, M.A.’s charges were withdrawn. A straight withdrawal was important for M.A. for employment reasons and thus, Yuvika Johri was able to secure that for him.
One count of Assault resolved by way of a peace bond prior to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Cornwall. The Complainant and S.C. were a newly married couple. The Complainant had recently immigrated to Canada. One evening, a 911 call was placed by the Complainant screaming that her husband is fighting with her. S.C. could be heard in the background shouting that he was not fighting with her. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant informed the police that there was an argument during which she took her cellphone and S.C.’s cellphone to call his brother. During the call, she alleged that S.C. tried to grab his cellphone from the Complainant. She further claimed that during the attempt to grab her phone, S.C. also grabbed the Complainant’s neck. During this altercation, the Complainant pushed S.C. causing him to fall. He then bit her left knee. During S.C’s interaction with the police, he explained that the Complainant held a knife against his through and threatened him, “I’m going to make you sorry and watch.” He alleged that the Complainant kicked him in the stomach and bit him. As a result of the information provided to the police, both the Complainant and S.C. got arrested for Assault. S.C retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure along with video recordings of the alleged altercation. It was obvious from the videos that the Complainant was the aggressive party in the altercation which also showed the Complainant assaulting S.C. After much back and forth with the crown and lengthy discussions at a Judicial Pre-Trial, Yuvika persuaded the crown to resolve S.C.’s charge by way of a common law peace bond after significant upfront therapy. This case unfortunately separated a newly married couple from living together for more than a year, and thus, a withdrawal was necessary for S.C’s case. The Complainant’s charges were eventually withdrawn in a similar manner.
Client found not guilty of one count of Sexual Assault after a trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The Complainant alleged that she had invited some friends over to her residence. She claimed to have been severely intoxicated and not remember anything from the night. She was found unconscious by her family members the next morning, naked, and with a used condom next to her. The house was robbed and several electronic items were missing in the apartment. Pursuant to a DNA warrant, A.M.’s DNA was found on the condom and within the vaginal canal of the complainant. A.M. was one of the attendees at the party. As a result, A.M. was charged with sexual assault. A.M retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. Yuvika Johri prepared a detailed application pursuant to s.276/278 of the criminal code. It was the defence’s position that the Complainant initiated sexual interaction with A.M. after she had already been having sexual intercourse with another individual in her room. When she did not finish, she initiated sexual intercourse with A.M. Several family members of the Complainant also testified about their observation of the complainant the next morning. The crown also called a DNA expert who was extensively cross examined by the defence. Yuvika Johri was able to establish a motive to fabricate as the Complainant was not allowed to have any parties at home and there were several rules to follow which she had broken on the night of the alleged offence. Just one year prior to the alleged offence, the Complainant’s father had been arrested for an incident in relation to the Complainant using Xanax as a result of which, she was placed under strict house rules. These rules were violated on the night of the alleged offence. The Complainant’s vape and jacket were also found in areas of the house where she claimed to not have been. A.M. testified on his behalf. After a 7-day trial, A.M was found not guilty of this charge as it was determined that the crown could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Complainant had a motive to lie.
R. v. J. L (2025)
One count of Sexual Assault resolved by way of a peace bond mid-trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located in Toronto. The Complainant alleged that in the early months of 2022, she met J.L. at a party and started to date on and off. Sometime around February 2022, the two became serious about their relationship and moved into a Bachelorette. During their relationship, J.L. was going through a divorce. One night in May 2023, the Complainant alleged that she was laying in bed facing away from the accused. She was trying to sleep dressed in her t-shirt and underwear. The Complainant alleged that J.L. was laying naked next to her when he began to cuddle her, grabbed her left arm, and put her on her back. She claimed that J.L mounted on top of her, removed her underwear, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. The Complainant claimed that J.L forced vaginal intercourse until he ejaculated inside her. After the ejaculation, the complainant went off to sleep and so did J.L. J.L retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him against the charge. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and noted several issues with the crown’s case. A detailed application under s. 276 of the criminal code was prepared which was successfully granted. On the day of the trial, the Complainant arrived late and decided to provide a further statement to the officer in charge in relation to new offences against the accused. She also provided an audio recording of an argument that took place days before the alleged sexual assault. As a result, the trial was adjourned due to last minute disclosure. After much back and forth with the crown in lieu of the last-minute disclosure and new statement which raised grave concerns about the complainant’s credibility, Yuvika convinced the crown to resolve the case by way of a peace bond.
Three counts of sexual assault withdrawn by way of a peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant was a female friend of M.C. who was also a female. M.C. and the Complainant were a part of the same social circle. M.C. was involved in the complainant’s company as an investor. The agreement between the Complainant and M.C. was to split profits 70/30 percent for a couple of years. However, this working relationship went sour when the Complainant failed to provide M.C. with the agreed upon profit. The Complainant did not appreciate M.C.’s repeated demands for the agreed upon split and thus, laid charges for sexual assault. The Complainant alleged that sometime between March 2023, M.C. attended her spa with alcohol after working hours. When the Complainant was falling asleep, she alleged that M.C. climbed on top of her and began kissing her. The Complainant tried to push her off but M.C. grabbed her breasts and vagina. She held the Complainant’s hands and placed it on her own breasts all while the Complainant protested and repeatedly said no. The Complainant also alleged that M.C. used a sex toy to penetrate her vagina on this occasion against her will. On another occasion, the Complainant alleged that she had gone clubbing with M.C. and their common friends. One of her common friends became very intoxicated so she decided to drop her home with M.C. While leaving the common friend’s home, she alleged that M.C. grabbed the Complainant, groped her, and started fondling her breasts while kissing her against her will. On the third occasion, the Complainant alleged that M.C showed up at her residence unannounced to watch a movie. While watching the movie, she alleged that M.C. suddenly reached over and grabbed the Complainant by the face to kiss her. The Complainant said no and pulled away but M.C. continued doing so. At one point, she started touching and fondling the Complainant’s breasts. The Complainant asked M.C. to leave as she was not comfortable. The Complainant told the police that she was not in a relationship with M.C. and never had been prior to these incidences. M.C. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend her on the charges. Yuvika prepared a comprehensive application under s.276/278 of the criminal code. Yuvika provided text messages between the Complainant and M.C. which showed that they were “friends with benefits” prior to the time frame when the Complainant alleged sexual assault. Yuvika also provided paperwork from small claims court which showed that M.C. had initiated a claim against the Complainant prior to the allegations. Yuvika was able to show that the charges were laid as a means to prevent M.C. from pursuing small claims action against the Complainant. After much back and forth with the crown, Yuvika was able to convince the crown to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond. All charges were withdrawn against M.C.
One charge of assault withdrawn, no peace bond, following a pretrial call between Mr. Whitfield and the assigned Crown. The client, who was new to Canada and who knew only basic English, had been charged following an argument with his partner. The partner had opposed the arrest. During discussions with Mr. Whitfield, the Crown acknowledged the accused’s vulnerability and accepted Mr. Whitfield position the accused was clearly not an aggressor. The charges were withdrawn following brief upfront counselling.
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.
