Rex v. U.M. (2023)
Client found not guilty of Assault, Assault Choking, human trafficking x 2, Material Benefit x 2, Procuring, and Advertise Sexual Services, after six-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. U.M. was asked by his marijuana supplier to assist with a young lady who came in from a northern part of Ontario. U.M. put her up at two hotels, under his name, address, and points reward number and then later in the week was alleged to have trafficked her for sex. U.M. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, to represent him on the charges. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison, an advocate for falsely accused men, worked on the file. The case was carefully analyzed, and considerable time was placed on drafting cross-examination of the complainant and a witness who was originally charged with the same offences but let off of the charges to give evidence against U.M. At trial, cross-examination was detailed, and persistent which resulted in raising very significant issues of credibility and reliability. The client was prepared to testify and did so at trial. The trial judge quoted extensively from cross-examination of both Crown witnesses and the defence written closing submissions. Key elements were the surveillance footage of the client who did nothing to conceal his identify when booking the young lady into two hotels, no financial documentation to support any funds from sex trafficking, poor recall due to drug use, no actual evidence of any appointments to meet clients, and complete freedom of the complainant to contact her family, and roam around Toronto. There was so much evidence contradicting the complainant that was outlined in the closing written submissions. Further, the other Crown witnesses had significant deficits in her evidence including her interest in the outcome of the trial to ensure her obligation to cooperate with police to give evidence against U.M. so that she was not charged with the same offences. At the conclusion of the matter, the Court determined that U.M. was not guilty of all offences.
Regina v. S.S. (2022)
Charges related to human trafficking of procuring, advertising, living of the avails, money laundering and criminal organization all withdrawn prior to commencing the preliminary hearing. The client was charged along with other parties in relation to a human trafficking operation. Numerous search warrants were executed, based on a three-year investigation by police including massive amount of surveillance and undercover investigations. Joseph Neuberger, Christopher Assie and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence team. After extensive analysis of the evidence, it because clear that there was no direct evidence linking S.S. to the operation of the organization. The alleged laundering and financial side of the case again could not be directly linked the proceeds from the operation. Further, there was a limited evidentiary basis for the Crown prosecution to even establish willful blindness. As a result, the charges of human trafficking were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.K. (2021)
Charges of Human Trafficking, Financial or Material Benefit from Trafficking Persons, Fraud over $5,000.00, Assault, and Utter Threats, all withdrawn prior to preliminary hearing. M.K. had allegedly brought into Canada a domestic caregiver for financial gain, and exploited the worker along with other related allegations. The evidence was not the usual or typical case of this kind. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers to represent M.K. An extensive defence investigation was undertaken after review of the Crown evidence. A voluminous package of materials were assembled along with a 25 page letter to the Crown outlining the defence evidence and establishing the fabrication of evidence, intentional misrepresentation of financial transactions, and legitimate legal means to bring the complainant into the country who had her own agenda as to what she wanted to do in Canada. Lega analysis was provided as well as to “exercise of control” and “benefit” that undermined the complainant’s narrative. After numerous pre-trials, a resolution was reached where withheld salary was paid to the complainant (which was appropriate), and the charges were withdrawn.