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
Client charged with dangerous driving after an alleged road rage incident at Yorkdale Mall during Boxing Day. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and requested the security surveillance videos from Yorkdale. These videos demonstrated that the complainant’s allegations regarding the client’s actions were not entirely accurate or credible. After several pre-trials with the assigned Crown Attorney at 1000 Finch Ave West, the client entered into a section 810 peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at the start of trial. The client was stopped by police just as he was leaving the restaurant where he had been with friends. At the police station his readings were rising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed two of the client’s friends and based upon the pattern of drinking, Mr. Neuberger retained an expert toxicologist to determine if there was a “Last Drink Defence” available. The expert determined that the defence was available. As such a two day trial was set. The client unfortunately contracted a serious illness prior to trial that affected his cognitive functioning and a motion was brought by Joseph Neuberger to stay the charges due to permanent medical issues. The Crown conceded the issue but a resolution was reached for the client to plead guilty to a charge of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. C.H. was stopped by police immediately after leaving Moxie’s Grill and Bar, and was arrested for Over 80. His breath test readings were 114mg and 121mg; rising. Joseph Neuberger interviewed both the client and independently his friend who was with him at the restaurant. The client had only been at the restaurant for 50 minutes and consumed a quantity of alcohol that definitely gave rise to a “Last Drink” defence. C.H. had been on his way home and his residence was a short ten minute drive from the restaurant. Joseph Neuberger retained an expert toxicologist and based upon the independent evidence a report was produced confirming the defence. Given the readings and a good driving record, the Crown agreed for C.H. to plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.
Charge of Dangerous Driving withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client was charged with travelling between 90 km and 270 km per hour on Yonge Street at 3:00 a.m. in the early morning hours of a Sunday. The client was chased by two police cars and some of the driving was rapid lane changes but there was limited traffic on the road. After extensive discussions between Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, and the Crown, with consideration of the client having completed 110 hours of community service and completed a Driver Safety course, R.L resolved for a Highway Traffic Act charge with a fine and a short suspension. The Criminal Charge of Dangerous driving was withdrawn.
Client charged with impaired driving and over 80 after police investigated a rear end collision. The readings were low and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish the defence of bolus drinking. Accordingly, the Crown withdrew the two charges and the client plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.
Client charged with Over 80 after being involved in an accident on the QEW where client hit another car from behind that was carrying a young infant in the back seat. On the day of trial at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, the Crown agreed to resolve this matter by way of a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Lawyer John Navarrete, in conjunction with a toxicologist hired by Neuberger & Partners LLP, was able to demonstrate to the Crown Attorney’s Office that the client was not Over 80 at the actual time of driving.
Client found not guilty after a three day trial of dangerous driving in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was alleged to have been speeding in excess of 150 km on highway 427 weaving in and out of lanes and ultimately colliding with a minivan that flipped over as a result of a collision with the client. Seven witnesses were called by the prosecution and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully cross examined each witness to negate issues of speed and erratic driving. Joseph Neuberger established through cross- examination that the driver of the minivan changed lanes into the client’s lane without signalling and actually cut off the client thereby causing the accident. Due to numerous inconsistencies the Judge found R.M. not guilty of dangerous driving
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the technical data on the intoxilyzer that was used to take the readings and discovered anomalies in the previous testing. In addition, the readings were sufficiently low that Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that a prosecution in the circumstances was not in the public interest. The client entered a plea to a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act and received a $1000.00 fine. The criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice after lawyer Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the matter had taken too long to come to trial. Ms. Nichols argued that due to the Crown’s actions and the lengthy institutional delay at the courthouse, that client’s charges should be stayed, particularly because he had suffered prejudice as a result.
Client found not guilty after trial on charge of Over 80. The client had given inconsistent evidence to the arresting officer, but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, interviewed a colleague of the client who was present on the evening and it appeared that the client and the witness both consumed 6 ounces of Overproof Rum about 10 minutes prior to leaving the nightclub and nothing else. The client was stopped within a few minutes of leaving the club. As such, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger ran a “last drink” defence and called a defence expert toxicologist to establish that at the time of driving, the client would have had a blood alcohol concentration below the legal limit although the readings at the time they were taken at the police station some hour and half later were accurate. The trial judge found the evidence raised a reasonable doubt and the client was found not guilty.
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.
