← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton.  M.A. had attended with his truck a cement loading company and entered an office of the operator.  M.A. overhead racial comments that disturbed him and he confronted the female operator.  After about 11 minutes, he left the operator’s office and continued to load his truck. He thought about the exchange and later in the day sent a friendly text to the operator to de-escalate the matter as he had to attend that location everyday for as part of his job.  However, after a day or two he became increasingly upset and spoke to the HR department of his company.  Two days later he discovered he was being accused of sexual assault.  He was charged by police and had to obtain new employment.  Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend Mr. M.A.  The complainant alleged a ten-minute sexual assault that in many ways seemed physically not possible, and highly risky.  The complainant stated that no other person came to her office during the alleged sexual assault and that she was on the phone with a family member for five minutes of the sexual assault that did not deter him. There were many other details of the allegations.  Jospeh Neuberger subpoenaed the dash cam video recordings from his client’s truck and another employee who had attended the same location and office during the time frame of the allegations that required careful cross-examination to expose as false.  The dash cam videos were provided to the Crown three weeks before trial.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger, carefully got the complainant to commit to details of her story that were directly contradicted by the dash cam videos and then launched into a long cross-examination while playing the videos in court.  The complainant became increasingly hostile during cross-examination.  For example, the dash cam videos demonstrated that about four minutes into the alleged sexual assault, another truck driver entered her office and was in the office for no less than a minute.  This was directly contradictory to her statement to police and her evidence at trial.  The complainant claimed she forgot about this party.  This made no sense as he gave a statement about 72 hours after the alleged event. More importantly, additional videos showed that the complainant had to pay careful attention to this other driver operating his truck to move into position to be loaded. The complainant had to take several steps with the computer system to start the loading process and stop the loading process, again undermining her evidence including that M.A. had confined her forcefully to her chair.  Further, Jospeh Neuberger cross-examined on the mechanics of the alleged sexual assault and several aspects were highly implausible if not impossible.  Joseph Neuberger filed written closing submissions, and the Court found the complainant not believable, accepted the evidence of M.A. and found him not guilty of sexual assault.   * This was another case that after detailed cross-examination, it became obvious that the complainant had a motive to fabricate a false allegation to avoid an adverse employment complaint.  However, if not for the dash cam videos, M.A. would still likely have been found not guilty but would not have had objective evidence to establish objective evidence of fabrication.  This is a caution as to how easy it is for a false allegation to be made.  But how it is important to spend considerable time building the defence to establish the client’s innocence.