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
Eight Counts of Assault, Forcible Confinement, Mischief, Utter Threats withdrawn by the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. H.M., a general contractor, was charged with multiple counts involving intimate partner violence allegations made by his former girlfriend after their relationship ended. The girlfriend had several mental health issues acknowledged by her own family and prone to violence against H.M. during their relationship. Initially, the Crown was intent on proceeding and three days were set aside for a contested trial. Michael Bury spent considerable time negotiating with the Crown and highlighting the obvious problems with the Crown’s case given the girlfriend’s mental health issues and lack of cooperation with the prosecution. The Crown, accordingly, agreed to withdraw the charges against H.M.
Two charges of Sexual Assault withdrawn by the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. B.C., a registered massage therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault following allegations made by a former patient. The patient had seen B.C. on eight separate occasions and claimed that on two occasions he had inserted his fingers into her vagina without consent on the pretence of giving her a muscular internal massage. Despite the allegations, the patient continued to see B.C. for massages. Initially, the Crown was intent on proceeding and three days were set aside for a contested trial. Michael Bury spent considerable time negotiating with the Crown and highlighting the obvious problems with the Crown’s case given the patient’s uncertainty about what had transpired, especially since she admitted to being a heavy marijuana user and smelled of marijuana during the treatment sessions. The Crown, accordingly, agreed to withdraw the charges against B.C.
Client charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of assault, with a five-day trial scheduled at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The complainant alleged non-consensual sexual touching by her friend during an impromptu massage followed later by several attempts at unwanted kissing. RR vehemently denied all allegations. Mr. Whitfield prepared a forensic cross-examination focused on material inconsistencies in the Complainant’s statement. During discussions with the Crown, Mr. Whitfield disclosed a memo based on the cross-examination to establish no reasonable prospect of conviction and as a result the crown withdrew the charges ahead of trial. The parties agreed to a peace bond resolution that admitted no criminal or civil liability, and which did not admit the facts. Mr. Whitfield worked collaboratively with the Crown to craft conditions agreeable to RR and the Complainant.
Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault spanning a 22-year relationship and marriage with over 742 alleged sex assaults, after a four-day trial in the Superior Court, Toronto. J.Z. and the complainant commenced dating in 1997 and eventually got married. They separated in 2019. The couple had three kids and had what seemed a normal marriage. The relationship began to deteriorate in the mid-2000s after J.Z. sustained multiple concussions leading to him being under employed that created significant financial pressure. J.Z. is a teacher but ran a sports training business on weekends and due to his injuries, he was not able to perform as well in his business. The complainant started to allege that J.Z. had sexually assaulted her as far back as when they started dating by forcing himself on her when he was sleeping. Later, the complaints grew to include alleged sexual assaults that occurred likely when he was awake but pretending to be asleep during which he choked her and then ridiculed her after. The arguments grew and J.Z. told the complainant that he wanted a divorce and to sell the house after a major blow up regarding these allegations. J.Z. denied the allegations and said it made no sense. J.Z. and the complainant eventually filed for divorce which became highly contentious. There were issues of parental alienation and J.Z. would not agree to the settlement the complainant offered. The complainant went to the police and J.Z. was charged with two global counts of sex assault that alleged over the entire relationship and marriage she was continuously sexually assaulted resulting in over 742 acts of sex assault. J.Z. was removed from the house and then was cut off from contact with the children. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison joined the defence team. The defence was able to obtain several documents written by the complainant during the divorce and police investigation that the Crown alleged were third party records. Joseph Neuberger used these written “stories” for cross-examination. In addition, the family court filings were a fertile area of material to cross-examine on. A motion had to be brought to ask certain questions related to “other sexual activity” that was successful. After an extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, J.Z. testified and did well. The judge found J.Z. credible and found serious credibility issues with the complainant. For example, Joseph Neuberger submitted to the court in closing argument that the complainant alleged that the majority of sexual assaults were all the same with only memory of one being slightly different. Further, the first sex assault was to have occurred when the two first started dating and was a very brutal violent sexual assault. At the time, the two were not living together and the complainant lived at home with a loving family and a good circle of friends. It was argued that the complainant would not have continued to date J.Z. had this violent sexual assault occurred. Although the court noted this argument was close to myth-based reasoning about how a real victim should behave, Joseph Neuberger submitted that in the totality of evidence, it was well beyond common sense that the complainant would have continued to date J.Z. and be subjected to endless sexual assaults even before they were engaged. The lack of any real specificity of the sexual assaults other than being all the same, rendered her credibility highly suspect and in the defence position a fabrication. Ultimately, J.Z. was found not guilty on both counts.
J.W. was charged with six counts of Assault, two counts of Assault with a Weapon, Utter Threat and Mischief Under $5,000 out of the Toronto courthouse. J.W. and his wife were planning to purchase a house. J.W.’s family transferred J.W. and his wife a large sum of money for the purchase of the house. Money was deposited into the shared bank account. However, the relationship between J.W. and his wife started to deteriorate. On the day of the arrest, J.W. noticed that money for the house purchase was transferred from their shared account into the wife’s personal account. J.W. confronted his wife about it. The two started to argue and the argument became heated. J.W. allegedly threatened his wife to kill her if she doesn’t return money. It was also alleged that he would choke her. The wife called 911 and provided a statement to the police. She recalled alleged historic assaults that involved pushing, hitting, using objects to threaten her and destroying her property by J.W. J.W. retained Mariya of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya gathered all the financial documents from J.W. She also reviewed the disclosure in detail. During a pre-trial with the assigned Crown Attorney, she convinced the Crown Attorney that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All the charges against J.W. were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault, and Utter Death Threats x 3 withdrawn after extensive pre-trials, Toronto. B.C. and the complainant were in a relationship while attending university. The two had at times an unhealthy dynamic and after months of arguments and copious amounts of messages exchanged, the complainant attended campus police and then gave a statement to police resulting in his arrest. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello were retained to defend the charges. The complainant in her statement laid out a narrative of B.C. being aggressive, threatening and essentially dominating in the relationship. We were able to extract from B.C.’s phone a massive volume of messages between he and the complainant. The dynamic was completely different. Joseph Neuberger prepared a chart and memo to the Crown laying out the chronology of messages and how they undermined the complainant’s narrative. After multiple pre-trials, the charges of Assault and Utter Threats were withdrawn.
P.A. was charged with Assault, Forcible Confinement, and Utter Threats. P.A. was involved in a verbal argument with her boyfriend that escalated to a physical confrontation. Despite P.A. locking herself in her room, the complainant called police. P.A. retained Grace Condello who arranged a pre-trial with the assigned Crown early in the process. At the pre-trial it was discussed that the boyfriend initiated the argument by name-calling P.A. Ms. Condello and the Crown agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. The charges were withdrawn prior to the first court date.
M.F. was charged with Domestic Assault, and Mischief cause damage to property. M.F. was involved in a verbal argument with the complainant that escalated to police being called. The complainant called the police a second time and advised police that M.F. caused damage to his property and assaulted him. MF retained Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello who bought an Application under section 502(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada to vary her release order as she was nine months pregnant and under extreme stress. The date was scheduled and disclosure was quickly obtained. Two pre-trials occurred. The Crown conceded the Application had merit and agreed that the charges should be withdrawn. All charges were withdrawn prior to the first court date and prior to the complainant having to attend for pictures and prints.
Charges of Assault, Forcible Confinement, and Utter Threats withdrawn prior to setting trial dates.
P.A. was involved in a verbal argument with her boyfriend that escalated to a physical confrontation. Despite PA locking herself in her room, the complainant called police and P.A. was charged. P.A. retained Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to defend the charges. The disclosure clearly noted that P.A. sought safety in the bathroom after an argument initiated by her boyfriend. Grace Condello booked an in-person pre-trial with the assigned Crown well prior to the first court appearance. During the pre-trial background information was provided, along with character letters. There was discussion about the disclosure and that the boyfriend not only initiated the argument by name-calling P.A. but was physically imposing and threatening. Ms. Condello and the Crown agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. The charges were withdrawn prior to the first court date.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie prior to setting trial dates. R.B. and his wife were in an argument over a minor matter. However, it escalated and the complainant called police alleging a significant assault with multiple punches. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello were retained to defence the case. The disclosure did not establish evidence consistent with the alleged seriousness and force of the assault. At a pre-trial, discussions surrounded the couple’s unhealthy coping techniques to martial disagreements. R.B. voluntarily attended 21 sessions of therapy directed at conflict management in an intimate partner relationship. The complainant took remedial steps as well. She in fact retained a criminal lawyer of her own to communicate her own conduct and desire to have the charge withdrawn. Ultimately, meaningful steps were taken by all concerned to address the dynamic and the Crown withdrew the domestic assault charge.
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.
