← More Recent Successes success stories

Client found not guilty of Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Utter Death Threats, Point Firearm, and Possession of Firearm, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. M.N. was alleged to have threatened and assaulted his ex-wife over an alleged dispute regarding their son. M.N. and the complainant had been divorced for several years but were still sharing custody of their young son. Over the course of a few months, tensions got heated regarding custody and child support issues. The complainant alleged that on Mother’s Day M.N. attended her apartment building and waited for her to return from work. As she was walking to the apartment at approximately 8:00 p.m. she alleged that M.N. got out of his car and pushed her to the corner of the building and put a gun to her head, threatening to kill her unless she provided him with the baby bonus cheques. M.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko. After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody. In fact, arguments had occurred prior to the date of the alleged offence wherein M.N. had suggested that their son would be better off living with him and his family because the complainant was working long hours and travelling extensively. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents and used a number of the documents in cross examination of the complainant. Further, at trial, evidence of the complainant suggested that the event took well over 10 minutes with extensive details of how the event unfolded. However, the building video surveillance showed M.N. exiting his car, walking up to the complainant, then going out of range, and coming back to his car with a duration of less than 60 seconds. In cross examination, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to draw out the alleged details from the complainant and then put to the complainant the actual duration of the surveillance. Further, material inconsistencies arose during cross-examination that undermined her credibility. M.N. testified in his own defence and denied the allegations. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court acquitted M.N. of all charges.
Read More