← More Recent Successes success stories

Directed verdict of not guilty entered after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto.  P.H.L. attended B Boss bar with friends.  During the evening, he was partnered with a young lady who he met a week before at the same bar.  The two played drinking games with their friends and eventually the young lady became intoxicated.  She was offered to go home with one or more of her friends, but she refused. She left with P.H.L. and no one provided P.H.L. with her home address.  P.H.L. took her to his apartment and after an hour she provided her address by typing in to his Uber app.  While at her apartment, the two engaged in intimate contact.  While leaving, P.H.L. encountered the landlord where the young lady was staying and later learned that the landlord wanted to evict the young lady for having a guest over.  Shortly after leaving, the young lady became increasingly angry at P.H.L. and blamed him for the eviction and began messaging P.H.L. about her situation.  She eventually had to leave the apartment about eight weeks later.  She then attended police and charged P.H.L. with three counts of sexual assault.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges.  Joseph had Diana Davison assist with the defence.  The complainant turned over to police selected WeChat messages but did not disclose other communications.  Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from the client, the Uber receipts and money transfers P.H.L. made over the morning hours to the complainant.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on several important issues, but in particular the messaging that had occurred from the time P.H.L. had left her apartment during which she expressed her anger at him for the eviction, blaming him, and her accusations that he took advantage of her.  Joseph Neuberger eventually obtained admissions from the complainant that she had been messaging for about two hours with P.H.L. during which time he also sent funds to appease the landlord and to calm down the complainant.  She admitted that she did not provide any of the earlier messages to the police.  Further, she was unwilling to admit how P.H.L. obtained her address if not from her and how the complainant obtained his WeChat information.  Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to suggest that the complainant had manufactured a witness to help her with the issue of her address.  That fact demonstrated to the Court, that the complainant was not being truthful.  The complainant had tried to manipulate the trial evidence to suggest her friends gave him the address, but he ignored it or changed it in the Uber app to scheme to bring her to his home.  However, in cross-examination it came out that in fact her friends had asked her to go with them home, and the complainant refused.  No one provided P.H.L. with her home address.  P.H.L. had in fact took her in an uber hoping to get her address but instead she just came to his apartment.  Later she gave the address and invited him over. This was in complete contrast to her initial statement to police and testimony.  There was detailed cross-examination also on her capacity to consent as she claimed she was essentially catatonic for the sexual assaults.  Capacity to consent was a main issue given she had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. However, consumption alone does not mean that she could not consent to sexual activity.  In cross-examination, it was established contrary to her statement to police, that she was walking, talking, and making conscious decisions.  Thus, at the end of a lengthy and detailed cross-examination, the Crown conceded that P.H.L. should be found not guilty of the three charges of sex assault.