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
A.L. was charged with Mischief Over $5,000 and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime out of the Newmarket courthouse. A.L. had a very difficult patch in his life where he turned to consumption of serious drugs that eventually led him to being homeless. As he needed some support in his life, he turned to a group of people who, he later came to believe, committed criminal offences. A.L. was asked to transport a motor vehicle from one location to another. Later, the vehicle was identified to be stolen and damaged. A.L. was charged with offences in relation to that vehicle. A.L. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners to defend him. Mariya received disclosure which included surveillance where A.L. could be identified driving the impugned vehicle. Mariya carefully documented the client’s version of events and his life history. A.L. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed medication. The side effects of the medication triggered a chain of events that significantly disrupted his ability to take care of himself, ultimately leading to being unhoused and addicted to illicit drugs. A plan was implemented to reconnect A.L. with his parents, and to embark on a drug rehabilitation program. Mariya provided the assigned Crown with a detailed package of information outlining the client’s history and reports attesting to his rehabilitation. Discussions during the pre-trial process, it was emphasized that keeping the client on his current trajectory was vital to his recovery. The Crown Attorney agreed and withdrew all the charges.
Charge of Mischief Under withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. The client was charged with Mischief Under in relation to a road rage incident. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The complainant alleged that the client attempted to change lanes and that he had to drive to the left to avoid a collision. The complainant alleged the client got out of his vehicle and “began to hit the trunk area with his fists” causing damages in the amount of $4,500.00. Ms. Condello was able to establish that it was the complainant who initiated the incident and had thrown a water bottle at the client’s vehicle first causing damage of $900.00. In light of the evidence, the Crown agreed to a common law Peace Bond and withdrew the charge of Mischief Under.
Charges of Break and Enter with intent to commit an indicatable offence withdrawn, Toronto. M.A. was charged with Break and Enter with Intent out of North York courthouse. She had a fight with her boyfriend and the boyfriend disconnected her business phone line. M.A. was very upset and came to her boyfriend’s house to ask for the phone line to be connected again as her business was suffering. The boyfriend didn’t let M.A. inside the house. M.A. broke the door and entered the house. Then she confronted her boyfriend and tried to have him connect the phone line. The argument escalated and M.A. called 911. Police arrived and spoke to the boyfriend. Upon finding out that it was his house and that M.A. broke the door to enter it, they arrested M.A. M.A. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya had the client put together a history for her to review and then based on the disclosure and the client’s information, Mariya put together a package for the Crown Attorney, including the background of the relationship, information on the client’s business and personal information of the client for a reasonable prospect of conviction assessment. After two pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Theft Over, Possession Over and Proceeds of Crime withdrawn prior to trial. K.Z. was alleged to have been part of a larger operation for the theft of high-end vehicles. Joseph Neuberger and Christopher Assie were retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyers Toronto. The majority of evidence was based on intercepts and evidence seized from numerous search warrants. When disclosure was sought of the source material for the Information to Obtain for the authorization for the intercepts and the search warrants, the prosecution was not able to provide very much by way of source material. In fact, numerous video surveillance had not been preserved. The notes of officers assisting with taking information from the informant to substantiate the evidence to target K.Z. were poor and failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the authorization for the intercepts and the warrants. As a result all charges were withdrawn.
D.Z. was charged with Mischief to Property and Utter threat out of Newmarket Court. It was alleged that while attending a community centre, he scratched a high-end car after an argument over a parking space. Mr. Navarrete immediately subpoenaed the video surveillance of the community centre and was able to demonstrate to the Crown Attorney’s office that no criminal offence had been committed. Charges against withdrawn and client entered into a common law peace bond with conditions.
The accused was a retired construction worker and performed small construction jobs to supplement his pension. While on a job site, he was working with a CAT small compact track loader. The accused was immediately confronted by police and arrested for possession of stolen property during a police sting operation on stolen construction equipment. O. G. retained defence counsel, John Navarrete. After reviewing disclosure, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown’s office in Scarborough and showed the Crown that there was no evidence that O.G. knew the machinery was stolen. Charges against the accused were withdrawn.
The accused, along with the co-accused, allegedly arranged to sell expensive stolen bicycles to an undercover police officer. John Navarrete was retained by J.F. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and met with the Crown in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete pointed the frailties in identification, and the lack of knowledge by the accused that the items were indeed stolen. Although the items were seized and returned to the bicycle shop, the charges against J.F. were withdrawn.
The accused in this matter was charged with possession of stolen property out of Kingston. The accused had gone to a hardware store on several occasions to pick up large orders of construction materials and on one occasion he was arrested. M.S. provided an incriminating statement. Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete worked together to assist M.S. including having the accused assessed by a Forensic Psychiatrist. Counsel recommended that the accused also perform charitable work and to make a payment for some of the loss suffered by the complainant company as an ex gratia payment. After various Crown Pretrials and Judicial Pretrials, the Crown decided to withdraw the charges against M.S. after being shown that M.S. had a promising future.
Client charged with mischief to property in Newmarket Court for having gotten into a verbal argument with another person at a community centre over a parking spot. Client is alleged to have scratched and kicked light of other person’s vehicle. Mr. Navarrete was retained and immediately subpoenaed the video surveillance from the Community Centre in York Region. This surveillance did not show that Mr. Navarrete’s client did anything wrong. Charges were withdrawn.
Client was charged with Mischief Under $5,000. The client had gambling issues and after an unsuccessful night of gambling, the client had damaged a random car in the parking lot of a casino. The incident was caught on the video surveillance. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained as a criminal defence lawyer. She conducted an extensive pre-trial with the Crown Attorney and explained that the client has gambling issues and a criminal justice system is not an effective way to deal with that despite the incident with the car. The Crown Attorney agreed and the charge was withdrawn after the client made a restitution cheque to the car owner.
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.
