PROPERTY CRIMES POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AND PROCEEDS OF CRIME

PROPERTY CRIMES POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AND PROCEEDS OF CRIME

R v. B. W. (2020)

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 The Crown Attorney agreed and the charge was withdrawn after the client made a restitution cheque to the car owner.

R. v. J.G. (2020)

Client was charged with Mischief Under $5,000. The charge stems from a domestic incident where the client found out the complainant had an affair. The client became upset and began damaging complainant’s items. The complainant called 911 and the client was arrested. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as his lawyer. As time was of the essence, Mariya had the client start with private counseling focused on anger management and some volunteer work. Mariya spoke to the Crown and advised that due to the client’s personal characteristics and tremendous amount of effort the client had put into his rehabilitation, the charge should be withdrawn and that a peace bond was not necessary. After negations, the Crown has agreed and the charge was withdraw.

R. v. Y.L. (2018)

Client charged with theft under in relation to items taken at in a mall. Lawyer John Navarrete met with the Crown’s Office at College Park and raised various issues with the witnesses and the lack of surveillance video and client’s actual conduct and raised the issue of “mere presence”. Client completed “Stop Theft Program” and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. J.C. (2016)

Client charged with theft under in relation to items taken at a Walmart. Lawyer John Navarrete met with the Crown’s Office at 2201 Finch Ave West and raised various issues with the witnesses and the lack of surveillance video. Charges withdrawn.

R. v. J.I. (2016)

Client was charged with various counts of fraud resulting from an allegation that the client had made a false insurance claim for a stolen motor vehicle. The amount in question was approximately $32,000. Lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the documents submitted by the client to the insurance company and the notes of the insurance adjuster along with Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete then met with the Crown’s office at 1000 Finch Ave West to show them that no criminal offence had taken place. As a result, the Crown Attorney’s office withdrew all the charges against the client on the day of trial.

Regina v. X.C.W. (2016)

Charge of public mischief withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. X.C.W. packed in his luggage an alarm clock that very closely resembled a bomb. When the luggage piece was scanned at the airport, airport security and police seized the luggage and arrested X.C.W. The item was seized and examined. It was determined to be an alarm clock and not a bomb however it was very realistic. Part of the airport was shut down for a period of time and the plane was delayed. X.C.W. had no intent to commit public mischief but he was aware of how it appeared. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had X.C.W. do 100 hours of community service. In addition, after researching relevant case law, there was a viable defence. Joseph Neuberger attended several pre-trials and the Crown agreed to withdraw in light of X.C.W. having completed 100 hours of community service.

Regina v. A. B. (2015)

Client charged with conspiracy to commit theft and theft for an incident arising at Pearson International Airport. Lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown’s office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown’s review to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case. On the day of trial, the Crown withdrew the charges against the client. (Property Crime)

R. v. B. K. (2015)

Client had an outstanding historical charge of using fake credit cards and failure to appear in court dating from 2009. Lawyer John Navarrete arranged for client’s surrender and release from custody for these dated charges. In addition, Mr. Navarrete held a meeting with the Crown Attorney’s office at 2201 Finch Ave West and was able to provide materials that raises issues of the client’s intent. As a result, the charges against the client were withdrawn and the client made a charitable donation. (Property Crime)

Regina v. V.L. (2013)

Charges of possession of stolen property x 13 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. V.L. operates a cell phone store but also purchases used items including used cell phones. A raid on his store resulted in the seizure of a number of items and 13 charges of possession of stolen property. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through purchase receipts for the alleged items that a number were not stolen and those that were questionable were purchased at a sufficiently reasonable price that it negated willful blindness on the part of the client. In addition, repeated requests of the Crown to produce statements from the owners of the allegedly stolen items remained unanswered. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.S.D. (2011)

Client found not guilty by reason of mental disorder of charges of Mischief Endanger Life x 2, Possession of Cocaine x 2, and Fail to Comply in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client had been unwell for several years and was untreated. While at his apartment, the client cut the safety ropes to construction scaffoldings outside his balcony, causing the entire structure to fall to the ground and present a hazard to the construction workers. In addition, when investigated, the client was found to be in possession of cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychiatrist to assess R.S.D., and as a result, it was found that R.S.D. was suffering from schizophrenia and at the time heard voices that caused him to be confused and unaware that his actions or illegal. After trial, the Judge accepted the defence and found R.S.D. not guilty by reason of mental disorder.

Regina v. T.P. (2011)

Client found not guilty by reason of mental disorder of charges of Mischief Endanger Life x 2, Possession of Cocaine x 2, and Fail to Comply in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client had been unwell for several years and was untreated. While at his apartment, the client cut the safety ropes to construction scaffoldings outside his balcony, causing the entire structure to fall to the ground and present a hazard to the construction workers. In addition, when investigated, the client was found to be in possession of cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychiatrist to assess R.S.D., and as a result, it was found that R.S.D. was suffering from schizophrenia and at the time heard voices that caused him to be confused and unaware that his actions or illegal. After trial, the Judge accepted the defence and found R.S.D. not guilty by reason of mental disorder.

Charges of theft x 2, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have stolen electronic devices from a colleague at work, and while at an electronics store. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no direct evidence of the client stealing and based upon video surveillance, there was not exclusive opportunity. In addition, evidence seized from the client was done in breach of the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.M. (2011)

Charges of Mischief to Property over $5,000.00 x 3, Weapons Dangerous, and Carry Concealed Weapon withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested based on being identified as a black male matching the description of a suspect who was breaking into vehicles in a nearby parking lot. When searched a knife was seized by the police from K.M. The police gave K.M. his rights to counsel but then drove K.M. to a location where K.M. said he had just come from and then to the scene of the break and enters. Some 32 minutes later the police took K.M. to the police station where K.M. never had the opportunity to speak with counsel. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and (b) and sought a stay of the charges. Joseph Neuberger argued that the police did not inform K.M. of the true nature of his detention and failed to act promptly to ensure the client had the opportunity to obtain much needed legal advice. As a result of this compelling argument, the Crown withdrew all charges.

R. v. M.T. (Y.O.) (2010)

Client, along with co-accused, was charged with robbery with a firearm for a robbery of a student of his Air Jordan Nike running shoes. Client retained Mr. Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown and Judicial Pre-Trials. The matter was set down for a trial. On the day of trial, Mr. Navarrete raised various legal issues including problems with the proof of his client’s knowledge of any firearm, whether the firearm was a firearm, and a possible violation of the client’s 11(b) Charter right, etc. Crown agreed to resolve the matter to an attempt theft. Judge ultimately gave M.T. an absolute discharge after he successfully completed mediation and community volunteering.

R. v. A.S. (2010)

Client charged with Theft Under $5,000 in Brampton. Client originally retained another lawyer who was unable to convince Crown to divert this matter given its “planning” and video evidence. Client then retained Mr. Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete put together a book of materials including various reference letters and raised immigration issues that would result from a criminal record which included case law. After reviewing Mr. Navarrete’s material, Crown withdrew the charges and accused performed community service hours.

Regina v. I.D. (2009)

Charges of Mischief Under and Common Nuisance withdrawn prior to setting trial date on basis on a negotiated settlement where there were extenuating reasons for the commission of the acts in question.

Regina v. C.B. (2008)

Charge of possession over $5,000.00 withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as Crown conceded Charter Application brought by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenging the search of the vehicle and subsequent seizure of evidence and confession. The defence established violations of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel and to be advised of the reason for detention.

Regina v. S.P. (2008)

Charges of Robbery. x 2 and Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger negotiated withdrawal of all charges based on inconsistencies in the evidence of Crown witnesses.

Regina v. Randhawa (2007)

charges of fraud, stolen credit card, possession of stolen property, possession of credit card data, theft under withdrawn after defence application for outstanding disclosure and challenge to the technical data produced by the Crown successful.

Regina v. R.S. (2006)

Client found not guilty on charges of fraud over $5,000.00, breach of trust and theft over $5,000.00 after three day trial before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. H.P. (2006)

Charge of fraud under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. J.G. (2006)

Charges of fraud and counterfeit money withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. Tang (2006)

Client acquitted after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Possession Stolen Property Over; Possession of Credit Cards and Credit Card Reader, Fraud. Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.

Regina v Zalewski (2005)

Client acquitted after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of 23 counts of possession stolen property over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000.00.

Regina v. Ceballos (2005)

Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and possession of credit card reading device. Defence raised credible, reliable “evidence to the contrary” as well as an innocent explanation as to the possession of the credit card reading device. After extensive cross-examination of the police officer, witnesses, and detailed submissions, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. T. Cousins and S. Cousins. (2005)

Charges of fraud over x 3, forgery x 3, utter forged documents x 4, possession of a forgery device. Withdrawn at trial after successful Charter Application for violations of Section 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, regarding violations arising from an unlawful search of their apartment.

Regina v. Zelewski (2005)

172 counts of possession of stolen property. All counts withdrawn at trial.

Regina v. C. Crockatt (2003)

Charges of break and enter x5, possession of stolen property, possession burglary tools, breach of probation x5. Client was acquitted after a three-day Charter Application. Judge determined that the Police violated client’s rights under Section 8, and that police conducted a warrantless search of the accused’s residence. The judge excluded all of the evidence and the client was acquitted of all charges before the court.

Regina v. Mohammadi (2003)

Charges of fraud under and theft under. Client acquitted after a successful 11(b) Charter Application.

Regina v. J.H. (2003)

Charges of member of criminal organization, participate in activities of criminal organization x 2, conspiracy to obstruct justice. All charges withdrawn after challenge on credibility of the main Crown witness.

Regina v. Ahilan Nagarajah (2003)

Charges of fraud over x2, copyright infringement x2. Charges withdrawn after challenge on search warrant.

Regina v. Fisher (2003)

Client found not guilty after trial on charges of Mischief and Breach of Recognizance.

Regina v. Lopresti (2002)

Charges of bookmaking, gaming and betting, proceeds of crime. All charges withdrawn subsequent to constitutional challenge.

Regina v. Zadov (2002)

Charges of Break & Enter, commit indictable offence, not guilty after attack on forensic evidence.

Regina v. Higgins (2002)

Charges of Assault x2, Assault With Weapon, theft Under – charges withdrawn.

Regina v. Ternowetsky (2002)

Charges of Robbery, Assault with Weapon, Mischief, client acquitted at trial.

Regina v. M.H. (2002)

Charges of theft under, assault – withdrawn.

Regina v. Shier (2002)

Charges of theft under – withdrawn.

Regina v. Wong (2002)

Charges of theft under, withdrawn.

Regina v. R.D. (2002)

Charges of theft under, assault, charges withdrawn.

Regina v. A.L. (2002)

Charges of theft over, possession over, fail to stop for police – charges withdrawn.

Regina v. J.H. (2002)

Charges of theft over, possession over, charges withdrawn.

Regina v. Da Silva (2002)

Charges of theft over, acquitted at trial.

Regina v. M.B. (2002)

Charges of Possession of Stolen Property, charges withdrawn.

Regina v. Keyes (2001)

Client acquitted at trial of charges of Robbery, Forcible Confinement.

 

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.

Back to Recent Successes

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