PERJURY PUBLIC MISCHIEF MISCHIEF TO PROPERTY AND BREACH OF COURT ORDERS

PERJURY PUBLIC MISCHIEF MISCHIEF TO PROPERTY AND BREACH OF COURT ORDERS

Regina v. K.Z. (2020)

Charges of Impersonation, Obstruct Peace Officer, and various Highway Traffic Act charges withdrawn and pre-trial with the Crown, Newmarket. K.Z. was driving while suspended and was pulled over by police. The client misidentified himself several times before telling the officer his real name. Police charged K.Z. with multiple offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After a pre-trial with the Crown a proposal was made for the client to undertake some community service and the charges would be withdrawn. After the community service was completed, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A.J (2020)

Charge of breach of release order withdrawn by second appearance in Collingwood court. The client is charged with six counts of Sexual Assault. While awaiting the trial, the complainant alleged that A.A.J. had communicated by sending a generic greeting via OkCupid, and then alleged some communications via either text or the dating site. The client was arrested for this breach. Joseph Neuberger continued as the client’s criminal defence counsel, and a very detailed disclosure request was sent to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger asserted that there is no way for the Crown to prove this offence given the generic greeting via a dating app that there is no source information nor tracing of the actual IP address. Anyone could hack the account and send the message. There was a series of communications between Joseph Neuberger and the assigned Crown. The Crown took the position that the statement of the complainant was sufficient as well as a screen shot of the message. There were no copies of any communications provided to the Crown by the complainant. Again, defence counsel asserted in writing that there is no way a court could ever find the client guilty of this offence on this evidence. In addition, Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought information from OkCupid about the status of the client’s account. In fact the account was de-activated well prior to the date of the alleged offence. The email from OkCupid was disclosed to the Crown and the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. C.Z.(2018)

Charges of mischief by making a false police report withdrawn. Client was a landlord who confronted a tenant who was late in payment of rent. Client is a Chinese immigrant who spoke very little English. He attended the police station to advise them that the tenant had threatened to shoot him and claimed he had a gun. The police dismissed the landlord, claiming that it was a civil matter and sent him on his way. The client went away and spoke to another tenant who understood that this was more than a simple landlord-tenant dispute. At the behest of the second tenant, the landlord called the police regarding the threat he received from the delinquent tenant. The police attended the tenant’s apartment and determined there was no gun. The tenant claimed he never spoke to the landlord that day. The police arrested the landlord and charged him with mischief for falsely reporting a threat. The client hired defence counsel Christopher Assie. Counsel investigated the matter and got the details of the second tenant, who was a key witness. Counsel convinced the Crown to have an investigating officer interview the second tenant to confirm the client’s version of events. After further investigation, the Crown agreed with counsel’s assessment of the case and simply withdrew the matter as there was no reasonable prospect for conviction.

Regina v. J.M. (2018)

Charge of impersonation of a peace officer withdrawn prior to setting trial date. A by-law enforcement officer flashed his badge during an altercation between a friend of his and a third party. The third party reported this to the police and J.M. was charged with impersonating a “police officer”. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. A legal memo was drafted by Joseph Neuberger regarding the offence and definition of a “peace officer” which was provided to the Crown. The client was directed to take a program regarding the parameters of the authority of a municipal officer. A report was then provided to the Crown. After two judicial pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. K. M. (2014)

The client was originally charged with numberous domestic related offences. Those charges were withdrawn at trial. However, the client was also charged with two counts of breach of his bail, in particular having contact with the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed chart setting about all of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger took statements of from three defence witnesses who were in the area when the two alleged breaches occurred. These statements directly contradicted the complainant’s version of events. The matter was set down for a two day trial, but after considerable discussion with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2013)

Client charged with Fail to Comply with Bail found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client who had worked for a jewelry store was originally charged with allegedly plotting to kill a rival owner of a store in the same plaza. After the main charges were withdrawn, M.K. was charged with allegedly breaching bail by walking by and standing near the complainant’s store. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the legal validity of the charge on the basis that the evidence did not even disclose an offence as M.K. by a bail variation was allowed to “walk by” the store. The Crown attempted to argue that “walk by” meant not stopping. This argument was rejected by the court and the client was found not guilty.

E(B) 2012

Client was charged with Mischief Over $5000.00 from the Toronto G20 Conference in 2010. Neuberger & Partners brought Charter Application at trial to exclude evidence which was granted. The Court found that the Toronto Police conduct in arresting the client had the airs of the worst of fascist states.

Regina v. N.D. (2012)

Charges of Fail to Comply with bail order x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa. The client was a young person charges with various drug offences and while on release was alleged to breached his bail by staying out at night beyond his curfew and to have been in possession of a small amount of marijuana. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to arrange for a complete withdrawal of the initial drug charges and then after sending N.D. for drug abuse counselling, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of the fail to comply charges because of the positive counselling report. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. I.C. (2011)

Charge of impersonating a police officer withdrawn at trial as a result of defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger proving, in cross-examination of the main Crown witness, motive to fabricate the evidence. The client was alleged to have identified himself as a police officer and to have flashed a police business card. The witness and his spouse in fact were under investigation for insurance fraud. The client was working for the insurance company. Once the investigation was established and that the witness knew that I.C. was working with the insurance company, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charge.

Regina v. R.S.A. (2010)

Charges of Swearing False Affidavit and Utter Forged Document withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with swearing and procuring a false affidavit that was tendered before a Justice of the Peace in order to re-open a trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger after a careful and detailed review of the evidence, including the lack of expert evidence to identify the signatures on the impugned documents, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. Z.H. (2010)

Client’s charge of perjury was withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was charged with perjury after testing as potential surety in a bail hearing. Client questioned by Crown Counsel on a past alleged conviction. After reading the affidavit of the client, the Crown searched the name of Z.H. in the police information system and came up with a purported prior conviction with a jail sentence. Crown counsel then cross-examined Z.H. at the bail hearing. After Z.H. denied the prior conviction, he was arrested for perjury. Client was held for bail and then released. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger sought from the Crown, by way of disclosure, a statement from the Crown as to when the client’s name was searched, why, and why was the details not disclosed prior to Z.H. testifying. In addition, information was sought on the Crown policy to disclosing information obtained on a search of a potential surety. Joseph Neuberger took the position that if the Crown had obtained such information, whether it was accurate or not, that information had to be disclosed prior to any questioning of the surety. As such, the charge against Z.H. was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.J. (2010)

Client’s charges of mischief and cause disturbance withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Client was on a flight home from Jamaica when after a little too much rum, the client became embroiled in an argument with a less than customer friendly flight attendant. The allegations included damage to property and loud and disruptive behaviour. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of the employment records of the flight attendant in question, and the other attendants who were working on the flight. In fact, information revealed that there had been prior problems with staff. After negotiation, the charges were withdrawn.

 

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.

CONTACT INFORMATION

1392 Eglinton Avenue West
Toronto, ON M6C 2E4
Fax (416) 364-3271

COVID-19 UPDATE

On behalf of Neuberger & Partners LLP posted in COVID-19 on Tuesday March 17, 2020.

At Neuberger and Partners, we are monitoring the COVID-19 situation and have implemented safety measures to ensure the safety of our clients and staff. Our priority is and always will be the health, well-being and safety of our staff, clients and colleagues.

We have put in place various measures to prevent and minimize the impact of COVID-19:

  • In addition to standard hand-washing habits, our staff are washing hands before and after every client interaction;
  • All individuals entering our office will be required to use our hand sanitizer to ensure the safety of our other clients and staff;
  • Regular disinfecting of our offices, public areas, meeting rooms and board rooms as well as increasing the frequency of disinfection of higher-traffic surface areas;
  • If a lawyer or client who has a scheduled meeting is feeling unwell, they will be strongly encouraged to stay home;
  • For the time being, we will avoid greeting clients and colleagues with our usual handshakes;
  • We will make every effort to ensure our firm will be stocked up with extra tissue and alcohol-based hand sanitizer; and
  • We will monitor and stay informed from the Government of Canada and World Health Organization for facts as they become available. We will ensure all staff and team members are educated on symptoms and are well informed on prevention and best practices.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Will the firm still run if there are closures?

  • We are committed to assisting our clients. We remain open to assist our clients at this time (following aforementioned standards for health and safety). For clients who wish to communicate with our firm virtually, we have the technology for virtual meetings and are able to respond to the needs of our clients in a manner best to protect our staff and clients’ health.

Are staff and lawyers set up to work virtually?

  • All lawyers and staff are set up to work virtually and continue to assist clients and one another remotely. All lawyers are available via telephone, email and virtual video conferencing.

What is the court situation? How will we deal with court closures?

  • At this time, the Superior Court of Justice is closed from March 17, 2020 to June 1, 2020 – unless a judge orders otherwise.
    If you have a March matter, your matter will be postponed to June 2, 2020.
    April matters will be postponed to June 3, 2020 and May matters will be pushed to June 4, 2020.
  • Similarly, the Ontario Court of Justice will be closed for 10 weeks for all out of custody matters in criminal practice court. In custody matters will still be addressed. It is unclear if out of custody matters such as trials or preliminary hearings will continue since the courts have left this decision to the discretion of the judges. However, Bail courts will remain open for the time being.
  • The Court of Appeal for Ontario has suspended all scheduled appeals until April 3, 2020. But we are still able to file materials and apply for urgent appeals to be heard.
  • We will advise clients by email of their next Court date.

How can payments be made?

  • Payments can be made via e-transfer and visa payments can be made over the phone.

If I have to deliver something to my lawyer, how shall I go about it?

  • For clients who wish to drop off documents but do not wish to come in contact with any one at the firm, you are encouraged to drop them off in our mail slot in front of our office.

We will be open and available for any questions, comments or concerns. Please call (416) 364-3111 for any further information.

Stay safe and healthy,

Joseph Neuberger