← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault Choking, Assault and Breach of Undertaking, after three-day trial, Superior Court, Toronto.  I.J. was in a relationship with the complainant for three months before finding out that she was pregnant.  The two decided to live together and try and have a traditional relationship to raise their child. The couple did not do well together, and after the birth of their son, the two separated.  The complainant did not like I.J.’s lifestyle and was highly insecure that he was cheating on her.  After the break-up, the two could not agree on a parenting agreement, and the complainant wanted sole custody of their son.  The complainant filed an application in family court, and alleged a history of domestic abuse, including the sexual assault allegations.  The two eventually settled on shared parenting but over the next two and half years, the complainant still sought a formal relationship with I.J. and he continued his lifestyle.  After the complainant realized I.J. was in a committed relationship with another woman, she demanded that he not introduce the child to anyone he was dating.  When the two had a very heated argument wherein I.J. told the complainant that he would introduce their son to anyone he was seriously dating, the complainant attended a police station and gave a statement alleging sex assault allegations and assault.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend I.J.  Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court record, voice recordings, and copious messages between the complainant and I.J. over the years since the two began dating and carefully drafted a 276/278 Application to admit important messages, recordings and other relevant documents.  In addition, the defence sought to introduce other sexual activity evidence that was rooted in many of the messages and recordings that contradicted the complainant’s narrative.  The 276/278 Application was ruled admissible, and all evidence and areas of questioning was permitted.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her narrative and with the use of the defence evidence severely undermined the complainant’s evidence. The complainant was trying to justify her actions as “gaining her voice back” and “taking agency” whereas Joseph Neuberger cross-examined that the complainant had taken steps to eradicate I.J. as the father of their son. In fact, during cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger noted that the complainant has referred to their son as “MY SON” 24 times in her statements to police, and never once referred to the child as “our son”.  That type of possessive language is a clear indication of parental alienation.  Further, the complainant had I.J. charged with a breach because when she was walking on Queen Street one night in June of 2024, she noticed I.J. in a bar with his girlfriend.  She was with their son.  There was a court order for no contact. The complainant continued to walk toward the restaurant and stopped in front of where I.J. was sitting.  He asked her if it was ok to say hi to their son, and he hugged their son, and she left. She then called police because he spoke to her.  He was charged.  Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on her actions related to that offence and demonstrated that she intentionally invited a breach and was the type of person who was so self-entitled that the way she views all interactions is through her own lens of entitlement and lack of respect for I.J.’s needs and rights as a parent.  At the end of cross-examination, the Crown invited a directed verdict of not guilty.