Regina v. S.S. (2019)
Charges of Possession of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Percocet Tablets withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Milton. The client was 18 and parked at a MacDonald’s last spring. A cruiser detected an odour of marijuana coming from the car. The police officer approached and spoke to S.S. who readily admitted to have 20 grams of Marijuana. The officer placed S.S. under arrest, and then searched the car. After an extensive search found a pill bottle with opiate based drugs. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the police officer notes, Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials. It was explained that not only was possession of marijuana imminently becoming legal in Canada, the officer committed a number of Charter breaches, including some ambiguity as to whether the officer actually smelled marijuana to first give authority to detain S.S.. In addition, no rights to counsel were provided and the search of the vehicle was extensive and not merely as a search incident to arrest. As such, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged violations of section 9, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter. After filing an application and more discussions with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. L.J. (2018)
Charges of possession of heroin and marihuana withdrawn prior to trial. Client was stopped by military police while driving near a military installation ostensibly for speeding. The officer conducted a warrantless, illegal search of the client’s vehicle. Client hired Christopher Assie as his defence lawyer. Counsel demonstrated to the Crown the variety of Charter breaches the officers committed and convinced the Crown to simply withdraw the charges without setting the matter down for trial in exchange for the client completing some community service hours up-front. Client, who had no criminal record, now maintains a clean record as the charges were simply withdrawn.
Regina v. D.B. (2018)
Charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Fentanyl, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Oxy-Contin x 2, and Proceeds of Crime stayed in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton, after a three day pre-trial motion based on Charter violations of the client’s section 10(b), 8 and 7 rights. The client was charged with having stolen large amounts of prescription medication from a pharmacy with the assistance of the pharmacy assistant. The police had surveillance on the pharmacy and arrested D.B. as he walked from the pharmacy to his vehicle with a backpack full of prescription medication. The police gave him his rights to counsel, searched him and obtained his drivers licence and then asked him some questions including his address. Police then attended the home address and arrested two more people and laid additional charges. D.B. hired Joseph Neuberger, John Navarrete and Christopher Assie, all of the firm of Neuberger & Partners, as his defence team. The Crown initially was seeking a ten year jail sentence. After careful scrutiny of the police officer notes and a detailed cross-examination of officers at the preliminary hearing, Charter challenges were drafted for various violations but most significantly section 10(b) – the right to counsel upon detention or arrest. A detailed Notice, factum and case book was filed and a three day motion was conducted wherein Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officers as to their actions in relation to Mr. D.B. It became apparent that after Mr. D.B. was read his rights to counsel he asked to speak to a specific lawyer, thus immediately seeking legal advice. The police suspended D.B.’s right to access counsel and questioned him about an address that was a substantial piece of information to further the investigation and obtain a search warrant for his house. John Navarrete conducted the preliminary hearing and Christopher Assie drafted the materials for the motion. Neuberger & Partners takes a team approach to fully explore all possible issues and raise all possible defences including constitutional violations. After three days of cross-examination of the police witnesses, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were stayed.
Regina v. G.D. (2018)
Client found not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine after four day trial. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s home. The home is a large 4 bedroom house where the client resided with her mother, brother and a tenant. Police found a substantial amount of cocaine in 19 packets hidden in a purse, in a bag inside an handbag of G.D. G.D. retained Joseph Neuberger as her defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the evidence and interviewed other occupants of the house. At trial, Joseph Neuberger argued that the drugs were secretly hidden. Not in plain view. There was no direct evidence of handling of the drugs. No finger prints. In fact a scale also found in the room was not tested for cocaine residue and Neuberger argued the scale would not support a finding of knowledge. There was no evidence that G.D. was involved in trafficking nor any evidence of a lavish lifestyle. Neuberger prepared the client to testify and she told the court that she had a full time job and was out of the home much of the week and weekend. Neuberger discovered a text message from one of the officers to G.D. brother sent after the search. The text had content that showed the brother knew about the cocaine but that is was not his sister’s. The text was not disclosed by the police. The text was used in cross examination to raise a theory that the brother secretly stashed the drugs in his sister’s bedroom. The room infact was always unlocked and other people coming to the house had access. Neuberger argued that there were other reasonable inferences consistent with innocence. After all while stash drugs in a room G.D. was often away from and had always left unlocked? After extensive argument the client was found not guilty of the charge.
Regina v. Z.C. (2018)
Charges of Importation, Trafficking, and Possession for the Purpose were withdrawn prior to trial in Brampton. Z.C. was alleged to have participated in a controlled delivery of a substantial amount of heroin to the residence that he was staying as a student. John Navarrete raised issues of knowledge by Z.C. of the actual substance involved and triable issues involving the status of a C.I. by the police. As a result, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada withdrew all the charges against Z.C.
Regina v. M.B. and G.X (2018)
Charges of Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose x 5 and Possession, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. M.B. was alleged to have been in a hand to hand sale with an undercover police officer. Later search warrants were obtained and locations connected to M.B. and G.X. were searched where quantities of drugs were seized. Both were charged with the above offences. Joseph Neuberger and Christopher Assie were retained as their defence lawyers. Detailed disclosure requests were made and a defence review of the officers involved in the case was undertaken. Given various specific requests made by Mr. Neuberger and Mr. Assie for sensitive disclosure, the Crown withdrew the charges.
Regina v. C.S. (2017)
Client found not guilty of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.S. was at work when a search warrant was executed. The search was unrelated to C.S. but was in relation to the owner of the auto shop where the client worked. During the police search in a tool cabinet used by C.S. a large quantity of cocaine was found. Police seized the video surveillance equipment. After reviewing two weeks of video tape the police determined the C.S. had effective control of the tool cabinet and on one occasion C.S. is seen to have handled the bag with the drugs inside. As a result, police charged C.S. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger met with the client and then interviewed the owner and co-workers. After review of the police investigation it was clear the police had done a deficient investigation. There was no other evidence that C.S. was involved in drug trafficking or for that matter had any knowledge that the bag had cocaine in it. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined all of the police officers and the owner of the auto shop. It was clear after cross-examination that C.S. did not have exclusive control of the tool cabinet and in fact another employee had found the bag with the drugs in a car they were working on and was told by the owner to put the bag in the tool cabinet. C.S. had no idea the bag had drugs and as such the Crown conceded a trial that C.S. ought to be found not guilty.
Regina v. J.D. (2015)
Client charged with various drug offences including conspiracy to traffic in steroids, possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. After detailed review of disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several pre-trials with the Federal Crown Agent in Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the Crown’s case on lack of evidence regarding any proof of conspiracy and intent. The charges were ultimately withdrawn.
Regina v. M.A. (2015)
Client charged with various drug offences including possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) . Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a preliminary hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete was able to show via cross examination of three police officers that the police officers lacked sufficient observations during their surveillance to justify the search warrant for client’s home. The charges were withdrawn by the Crown in the Superior Court of Justice after a Judicial Pre-trial wherein the preliminary inquiry transcripts demonstrated the weaknesses in the Crown’s case.
R. v. R. S. (2015)
Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada as part of a larger police investigation. After reviewing disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several meetings with the Federal Crown in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete explained the weaknesses in the Crown’s case regarding lack of evidence of client’s participation in the conspiracy or knowledge of any drugs. The charges were stayed.
R. v. C.S. (2015)
Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana and possession of marijuana. Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a preliminary hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice in Bradford. Mr. Navarrete was able to show via cross examination of three police officers that the police officers lacked sufficient observations during their surveillance to justify the stop of the client, the search of his vehicle and ultimately the issuing of a search warrant for client’s home. In addition, Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Federal Crown that the Information to Obtain lacked the required Reasonable and Probable Grounds. The charges were stayed by the Federal Crown in the Superior Court of Justice after a Judicial Pre-trial.
Regina v. B.K. (2015)
Bail granted after a one day contested bail hearing on charges of Conspiracy to Import Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Importation, and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in 15 kilos of Cocaine. Joseph Neuberger ran a full day bail hearing addressing the Crown’s concerns about flight and strength of the prosecution’s case. The police had surveillance on a controlled delivery as part of a major project. Bail was obtained for the client.
Regina v. B.G.A. (2014)
Charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance x 5 and Possession for the Purpose withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The client was stopped by police while he was parked in a gas station. He was then removed from the car and the car was searched. A quantify of prescribed medication was seized as well as cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a gaping error in the police notes in relation to continuity of the drugs as well as an issue for the validity of the search. As a result the Crown withdrew all charges.
R. v. F.B. (2014)
Client charged with various drug offences in relation to a marijuana grow operation on a property client owned. After a trial begun in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket that spanned various days over a four year period, client was acquitted of all charges. Lawyer John Navarrete was able to show the Judge the frailties of the Crown’s case including the possibility of an alternative suspect.
R. v. L.L. (2014)
Client charged with possession of a firearm and possession of drugs as a result of a police search conducted in her apartment. At the first day of the preliminary hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice in Scarborough, Lawyer John Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to present various legal issues with the Crown’s case including the fact that the search warrant was obtained only after police initially entered her apartment without one, that the Crown could not prove that the client had any knowledge of the firearm or drugs given where they were located in her apartment and the fact that there was another co-accused who resided there, and that the Crown could not prove that the firearm was functional since it had never been tested and no Firearms Expert Report had ever been provided. As a result, the Crown withdrew all the charges against Mr. Navarrete’s client.
R. v. M(P.) 2013
Client was charged with Production of Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime after the Hamilton Police obtained a search warrant for his home. At the preliminary hearing defence Neuberger & Partners raised significant problems with the search warrant, including the use of smart meter data. The Crown dropped all charges after the client pleaded guilty to simple possession of marijuana and received an absolute discharge .
Client charged with production of marijuana after Toronto Police executed a search warrant at a Toronto location. Neuberger & Partners challenged the Toronto Police drug squad decision to obtain electricity consumption records about the client’s home without a warrant. Neuberger & Partners argued that the client had a privacy interest in the electricity consumption data as outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Gomboc (2010). On the eve of trial the Crown withdrew all charges.
Regina v. S.N. (2012)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking stayed in Superior Court, Barrie, after a lengthy preliminary hearing and extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Federal Prosecutor. After detailed cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the alleged number of plants was far less than the estimated 300 originally put forth by the police and that there was no evidence of any commercial activity. The defence put forth evidence that the operation was solely for medicinal purposes. Hence after lengthy negotiations the charges were stayed.
R. v. J.B. (2012)
Production of Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking charges from two separate grow ops withdrawn on eve of Superior Court trial after Neuberger & Partners mounts extensive Charter challenge to validity of 3 RCMP search warrants.
Regina v. G.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking x 5, and one count of possession stayed at the preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested after the police conducted surveillance that they believed established that G.D. had been involved in a drug transaction and was in possession of cocaine. The police entered G.D.’s home just prior to the issuance of a search warrant under allegedly exigent circumstances, and when the warrant was issued began a search of the house and found 3.5 kg of cocaine, over 3.5 kg of meth, 3 kg of ecstasy, and various other substances sufficient to charge G.D. with six drug related offences and put him at risk of a jail sentence in excess of eight years if convicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent several detailed disclosure requests for all notes supporting all of the information set out in the Information to Obtain (the document used by the police to convince a justice to issue a warrant). After very careful and detailed analysis, Joseph Neuberger, was convinced that a significant portion of the information was inaccurate and as a result he drafted a very detailed application to cross-examine the Affiant on the Information to Obtain, in order to challenge the validity of the warrant and attempt to exclude all of the evidence on a breach of the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish numerous deficiencies in the warrant including unsupported information, false information, and was able to raise a very strong attack on the alleged surveillance of G.D. As a result, the prosecution agreed that there were insurmountable problems with the validity of the warrant and all charges were consequently stayed.
R. v. V.(L.)
The Client was charged with conspiracy to traffic after being arrested in the Project Gladiator investigation. Neuberger & Partners, a certified specialist in criminal law, did a complete analysis of the disclosure, and gave his opinion to the Crown that the charge could not be proven even at a preliminary hearing. The Crown agreed, and withdrew the charge 4 months after the client was charged.
Regina v. N.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a controlled substance, withdrawn prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the basis of the stop and search of his client and was able to establish that there were no grounds for the search and seizure of the drugs. As a result the crown withdrew the charges.
Regina v. H.M. and H.V. (2011)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking were stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive negotiation and pre-trials with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The number of plants were approximately 200, but in accordance with the defence argument of defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sufficient defence evidence was established to demonstrate that both defendants were growing marijuana not for the purpose of trafficking but for medicinal purposes. After consultation with Joseph Neuberger, both clients were successful in obtaining their medical authorizations, and combined with issues surrounding the deficiencies in the grounds for the search warrant, Joseph Neuberger was able to negotiated that all charges were to be stayed.
Regina v. W.R.O. (2011)
Charge of conspiracy to commit the indictable offence of trafficking withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph A. Neuberger, after careful analysis of the prosecution disclosure, including intercepted text messages and emails, was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was successful in bringing an application under section 490 of the Criminal Code of Canada for the return of all seized property.
R. v. J. M. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Marijuana) and Simple Possession (marijuana) in Brampton. Client was stopped by police on a “routine HTA stop”. Client was in the passenger seat and then, under intimidation, told the police what he had on him. Client was later told to contact police privately if he wanted to cooperate with police to assist them with his supplier. Mr. Navarrete had a CPT with the Federal Crown and raised various issues including the illegal search and the law of acting as an agent for police. Federal Crown agreed that this case was problematic to prosecute and decided to offer diversion despite the amount of marijuana found. Charges were ultimately withdrawn after completion of 40 hours of community service.
R. v. D.H. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Heroin), dangerous driving causing bodily harm, fail to remain at accident, and resist arrest after allegedly making a serious of drug buys observed by police which then led to a high speed chase through a suburban neighbourhood. The Crown had been seeking significant jail time in the range of 4 years given the Heroin drug charges and the conduct of driving. Mr. Navarrete was retained by D.H. After reviewing the Federal Crown disclosure, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial and a Judicial Pre-Trial and was able to demonstrate to the Federal Crown and Judge the evidentiary problems with much of the Crown’s case. The Crown and the Defence agreed to a plea in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to dangerous driving for a conditional sentence and all other charges, including the drug charges involving Heroin, were withdrawn.
R. v. A.(M.) – 2010
Client’s charge of possession of 1lb of Cocaine stayed after Neuberger & Partners presses Crown on lawfulness of search of client’s house.
R. v. Gomboc – 2010
John Navarrete represent Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Supreme Court of Canada in a marijuana grow-op case. Chief Justice McLachlin says in her dissenting judgment:
 The intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (“CCLA”) submits that this type of information can be used to make several intrusive predictions regarding the probable activities taking place within a home. The CCLA submits, correctly in our view, that these predictions may include whether anyone is home, the approximate time at which the occupants go to bed and wake up, and guesses as to particular appliances being used. Of course, these predictions cannot be made with certainty. However, they do have the potential to reveal private or “biographical” information, and are significantly more reliable than any predictions that can be made using the electricity-usage information collected in R. v. Plant,  3 S.C.R. 281.
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.