The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial on the basis of defence challenge to Bill C-2 altering the ‘evidence to the contrary’ defence. Counsel Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols brought comprehensive challenge to the new law that will be heard in 2009. However, on the basis of the application and the low readings in this case, the defence convinced the Crown to not proceed on the charge of Over 80.
Crown withdrew Charge of Over 80 at trial after lawyer Neuberger & Partners filed Application alleging Charter breaches including Right to Counsel, Unreasonable Seizure, Right to Trial in Reasonable Time.
Charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 withdrawn by Crown at trial after lawyer Neuberger & Partners files Application alleging Charter breaches including Rights to Counsel, Right to Full Disclosure, Right to be tried within a Reasonable Time.
Client was charged with Over 80. Lawyer Neuberger & Partners brought Constitutional Application alleging breach of client’s rights under s. 10(b) because of language difficulties. Crown accepted breach and stayed charge.
Client had charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 stayed after Neuberger & Partners brought application to stay charges alleging various Charter Breaches, including Right to Complete Disclosure, Right to be tried in a reasonable time.
Client was acquitted of Charge of Dangerous Driving after 2 day trial where Neuberger & Partners successfully attacked credibility of investigating OPP officer.
Charges of Impaired and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to section 11(b) application brought by defence alleging unreasonable delay in bringing case to trial.
Client acquitted of Over 80 Care and Control after comprehensive defence accepted by Court negating evidence presented by Crown Attorney.
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in response to defence challenge to Bill C-2, alleging the new evidence provision is unconstitutional.
Charges of refuse breath sample and impaired driving dismissed at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After detailed and thorough cross-examination, the trial judge concluded that both officers were inconsistent and that there was a lack of evidence on the impaired driving charge. In addition, the trial judge concluded that based upon the evidence of the client and a defence witness, there was no refusal based upon erroneous advise of a friend who was a corporate lawyer. Accordingly, client found not guilty of the charges.
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.
