× Home Our Services   About Us   Recent Successes Testimonials News And Videos   Contact Us 中文
Contact Our Firm

Sexual Assault Domestic Assault And Other Violent Crimes

Book Your Free Consultation

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

 

Sexual Assault, Domestic Assault, Criminal Harassment, Threaten Death/Harm, Assault, and other Violent Crimes

Rex v. W.W. (2024)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. It was alleged that W.W. assaulted his girlfriend during an argument. Security guards at the apartment called the police in response to the argument. After the police met with both, W.W. was arrested. S.B. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Laweyers, to defend him. Tyler extensively reviewed the disclosure and conducted multiple pre-trials with the assigned Crown, noting certain inconsistencies in the evidence. A resolution was negotiated where W.W. undertook a conflict management program and after completion the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. S.L. (2024)

Charges of Sexual Assault; Charges withdrawn by the Crown. The accused was charged with a serious sexual assault involving his domestic partner. Both he and his spouse had been having arguments about their anticipated separation and possible divorce. On one occasion, the accused was alleged to have entered the bedroom where his spouse was sleeping. At this time, he repeatedly attempted to touch her in a sexual manner underneath her clothing. Despite requests by his spouse to stop, he continued his attempts to touch her without her consent until she was able to push him off of her. Shortly thereafter, the spouse contacted the police who attended at the residence and arrested the accused. Of particular concern to the police were the multiple firearms owned by the accused and stored legally on the premises. S.L. retained Michael of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Michael Bury embarked on extensive negotiations with the Crown’s Office on behalf of the accused. Ultimately, an agreement was arrived at whereby the accused would agree to forfeit his firearms in exchange for the sexual assault charges being withdrawn. Given that potential travel restrictions were a real concern, the proposed resolution was accepted by the client without any admission of liability in the event the matter were to be raised in any family law litigation.

Rex v. Y.G. (2024)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault x 2, Assault Choking, Forcible Confinement, Threat Death, and Mischief to Data, withdrawn prior to setting dates for trial, Toronto. Y.G. and the complainant were in a lengthy relationship. The two leased an apartment together, but Y.G. did not move in. Shortly after the two broke up. Arguments ensued about the cost of the apartment lease and other issues. After not speaking for several weeks, Y.G. was arrested and charged. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend Y.G. Joseph Neuberger obtained from Y.G. an extensive source of messages between the complainant and Y.G. These messages provided a robust history of disputes including financial disputes but zero discussion about any abuse. Shockingly absent from countless messages over a long-time span. Once the body cam footage was reviewed of the not-so-great interview of the complainant and her friend (at the same time), disclosed a poor account of the alleged assaults and sexual abuse, but yielded considerable motive to fabricate over anger for the break-up and financial concerns about being “screwed” by Y.G. After several pre-trials, it was determined that the Crown did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction, and the charges were withdrawn.

Rex v. S.B. (2024)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Oshawa. It was alleged that S.B. slapped and scratched his wife during an argument the two of them had. The wife called the police and S.B. was arrested. S.B. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. Tyler reviewed the disclosure and conducted multiple pre-trials with the assigned Crown. Tyler provided extensive background information on S.B.’s relationship with his wife and S.B.’s personal circumstances. Tyler encouraged the Crown not to take a position and suggested that S.B. attend 16 sessions of private therapy, with a report detailing his progress to be provided, and complete 20 hours of community service, following which they would revisit their positions. Upon completion of these steps and a very positive therapy report, the Crown agreed to have S.B. enter into a peace bond and his charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. M.K. (2024)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.

Rex v. D.P. (2024)

Charge of Sexual Assault with Choking; Acquittal at request of Crown following four-day trial, London. D.P. was accused of a sexual assault with choking involving a woman he had just met a house party. While at the party, the accused allegedly approached the complainant and initiated a conversation with her. After a short conversation of only a few minutes, the accused, according to the complainant, her that he was attracted to her and that he had his car parked outside. They then left the house and went to his parked car a short distance away. Both then entered the back seat of the parked car where they began kissing. The accused allegedly then grabbed the complainant by her neck and repeatedly choked her. After this, the accused was alleged to have laid the complainant on her back, removed her pants and underwear, and fondled her repeatedly. Shorty thereafter, the accused was then accused of having had repeated non-consensual intercourse with her. D.P. retained Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The case was a classic “he says, she says” case with no other witnesses for the Crown. There was no dispute that sexual intercourse had taken place. D.P.’s position was that the intercourse, and any other sexual activity, were entirely consensual. D.P. denied any repeated choking. Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano prepared a comprehensive cross-examination which clearly demonstrated significant inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s evidence. Additionally, extensive hours were spent with D.P. preparing his examination-in-chief with him and creating the Defence strategy. Following the cross-examination of the complainant by Michael Bury and the testimony of D.P., the Crown invited the Court to acquit D.P. due to the now obvious problems with complainant’s evidence following her cross-examination, in addition to D.P.’s consistent and reliable telling of his version of the events. The trial judge agreed and indicated that the Crown would have been facing an “up-hill” battle to convince him of D.P.’s guilt had the matter proceeded to submissions and then a review of the evidence by the trial judge to reach a verdict.

Rex v. J.E. (2024)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after four-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Toronto. J.E. had hired a caregiver for his children on a part-time basis. After the second day of her working with J.E., the caregiver made an allegation of sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the case. The allegations involved J.E. drugging the complainant, taking her to a storage room that had a bed set up in it and having sexually assaulted her. She described drinking water, then having no memory until she woke up about 45 minutes later with J.E. performing sexual acts on her. The case for the Crown revolved around two important aspects; one that she was drugged and second that she was taken to the storage room. When disclosure was received, it was notable that the toxicology report did not detect any substances other than ethanol in her urine. Similarly, there were no injuries noted. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison carefully deconstructed the statements of the complainant. In addition, the defence directed videos taken of J.E.’s house within a week of the client being charged denoting all aspects of the home to challenge several facts that the complainant gave about the home including the presence of alcohol. Extensive time was spent with the client working on his ability to testify at the trial. At trial, detailed cross-examination of the complainant elicited inconsistencies, but most importantly cross-examination on the issue of drugging, demonstrated that J.E. was in her full view and she did not consume any alcohol at his home. Further, she asked for a glass of water that was poured in front of her and then handed to her. The only time for J.E. to administer a drug into her water was about three seconds, during which the complainant still had peripheral vision of J.E. Further, the complainant experienced no onset of symptoms or effects of any drug. The complainant asserted in cross-examination that she immediately passed out and had no memory until waking up 45 minutes later. J.E. testified to a far different set of facts about when he came back to his home and conversation with the complainant which surrounded his work and other personal details that ultimately led to him being propositioned leading to consensual sexual contact. An argument occurred after consensual sex about compensation and a threat from J.E. about going to immigration. Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written closing submissions. Based upon all of the evidence, the Court concluded that the charge of Sex Assault had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and J.E. was acquitted.

Rex v. S.D. (2024)

Client found not guilty of multiple counts of historical sexual assault and sexual interference charges after a four-day trial, Oshawa. S.D. was in a highly acrimonious divorce from his wife who happens to be a family lawyer. About a year into the divorce proceedings, their daughter stopped all contact with S.D., and S.D. sought a number of methods to have renewed contact with his daughter, including reunification therapy. After arbitration and therapy, the daughter complainant told her Vice Principle that she did not want her father to have any details about her education because he sexually abused her. Eventually, S.D. is charged with numerous counts of sex assault and sexual interference. S.D. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. After receiving disclosure, it was notable that the former wife of the client was not interviewed as part of the police investigation. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison obtained all the family court documents, which included evidence of parental alienation on the part of S.D’s former wife. The defence gathered years of photographs and videos from S.D. as he was a dedicated father and enjoyed taking photos of family trips, and his activities with his daughter, both before and after the separation from his former wife. Joseph Neuberger brought an application to have the photographs admitted at trial for cross-examination of the complainant. The motion was granted. At trial, extensive cross-examination focused on various statements the complainant made about the reasons for ending contact with her father, and then put to the complainant at least 50 photographs spanning the years of the historical allegations. During cross-examination, the complainant continued to double down on her allegations and insert new evidence and allegations. This led to further cross-examination and eventually demonstrated an alignment with the mother post separation. The complainant blamed the father for the sale of the family home, the breakdown of the marriage, and the language used underscored her alignment with her mother not only in the divorce but to remove S.D. from her life which was something the former wife of S.D. sought. S.D. was prepared for testimony at trial. Extensive time was spent with S.D. At trial S.D. testified very well and ultimately was believed by the Court. Extensive written defence submissions were filed. The Court found S.D. factually innocent of the sexual assault and sexual interference charges.

R. v. N.P. (2023)

Charge of sexual interference withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice, Peterborough. P.A. was alleged to have been in a relationship with a 13-year-old. It was alleged that the 13-year-old reached out to her estranged father to re-build their relationship. During their communication, she allegedly disclosed that she was dating N.P. who was an adult. The father informed Peterborough police of her communication with his daughter. N.P. was arrested for sexual interference. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charge. After conducting several crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials, N.P’s matter was resolved by way of an 810.1 peace bond. Defence was able to show several issues in the crown’s case including that the 13-year-old was involved in other sexual assault cases as a complainant. There was evidence of her repeatedly trying to initiate a romantic relationship with adults including N.P. After repeated attempts, the police were unable to contact the father for a statement nor were they able to get a statement from the 13-year-old. The client underwent extensive upfront therapy and the charge was ultimately withdrawn by way of an 810.1 peace bond. A withdrawal was important for the client as he was on a work visa and a conviction would have meant jail and deportation thereafter.

R. v. H.A. (2023)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after a 4-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant alleged that she met H.A. on a dating website. They agreed that H.A. will pick her up from her residence and they will go to a park for a walk. The Complainant alleged that after H.A. picked her up, they stopped at a few restaurants to pick up food, however, they were unable to get a take out. She further alleged that within ten minutes of reaching the park, H.A. claimed to feel unwell and suggested that they go back to the Complainant’s residence to continue their date. She alleged that upon reaching the Complainant’s residence, H.A. kissed her as soon as they entered her residence. He then pushed her on her living room couch and continued kissing her. Thereafter, she alleged that H.A. held her hand, dragged her to her bedroom, and forced her to engage in oral and sexual intercourse. The Complainant also provided pictures to show injury marks on her hands and on her stomach which she claimed was a result of the sexual assault. The Complainant reported H.A. to the police after a few days. However, the police were unable to locate H.A. for over a year. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charge. A motion for directions was brought to get judicial guidance on whether the initial kissing in the living room was a part of the subject matter of the offence; as the Complainant in her statement to the police explained that it was consensual and the sexual activities in the bedroom were forced. Defence won the application, and it was decided that a s.276 application was not needed to address the kissing as “other sexual activity.” Yuvika Johri cross examined the complainant for two days and was able to establish significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant to the police with her in-court testimony. The Complainant’s description of the date and the alleged sexual assault during examination in chief was different in various aspects to her explanation to the police in her statement. After a 4-day trial, the charge of sexual assault was dismissed.

R. v. M.C. (2023)

Client found not guilty of four counts of Sexual Assault at the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The Complainant and M.C. were common law partners with three children. The Complainant alleged that she had separated from M.C. for a few years, but they had agreed to live together in the same house for the sake of their children. She also explained that during their separation, they continued having sexual relationship with each other. However, she alleged that they stopped having sexual relations a year prior to M.C’s arrest. The Complainant alleged that 6 months prior to M.C’s arrest, M.C. sexually assaulted her on four different occasions. She alleged that the first two times, M.C. walked in to her bedroom in the middle of the night and put his hands inside her pants without her consent. She claimed that on the third and fourth occasion, M.C. cornered her in the kitchen, removed her top, kissed her and fondled her breasts without her consent. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charges. An independent investigation of the Complainant’s social media account was done by the defence. Defence found two TikTok videos posted by the complainant post M.C.’s arrest. A s. 278 records application was brought to admit these videos into evidence at trial along with other defence materials. The application was successfully argued over three days and defence materials were deemed admissible. During the trial, Yuvika Johri crossed examined the Complainant for two days. It was defence’s theory that the Complainant was using the criminal case as a means to gain notoriety as a social media influencer. She denied that she did not do anything to make her posts go viral even though there were several hashtags on her posts. Yuvika Johri was able to establish several inconsistencies in the Complainant’s motive to make the allegations against M.C. After a four-day trial, M.C. was found not guilty on all charges of sexual assault.

Rex v. R.P. (2023)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, withdrawn on the first day of trial. R.P. was charged by a family member with historical allegations of sexual assault dating back some 12 to 14 years. These events were alleged to have happened over a consistent period of time during family functions, sleepovers and other family gatherings. Joseph Neuberger, Diana Davison and Nick Whitfield of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained. The complainant provided three statements. Each statement was transcribed and then broken down into a timeline with a chart of inconsistencies. Then interviews were conducted with various family members to build the defence narrative that would refute circumstances of each offence dealing with opportunity, place and context of all parties present when some of the offences were to have taken place. The breakdown, history, and witness interviews refuted a number of the complainant’s sex assault allegations. For example, during certain time periods when offences were alleged to have occurred, R.P. was not in the city. Extensive time was put into preparing the client and witnesses for trial and developing the cross-examination. On day one of the trial, discussions between the defence and Crown resulted in a withdrawal of all charges in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond.

Rex v. P.B. (2023)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon, withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. P.B. were in the midst of separating and it was a bitter split. An argument ensured where P.B. called police due to being assaulted by the complainant. Police attended, separated the parties, and P.B. was charged. P.B. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. The police did not take formal statements but did have their body cams on and took three hours of recorded interaction with P.B. and the complainant. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full three hours and transcribed the recordings. Comparison of the recordings demonstrated that the police failed to assess the available evidence properly resulting in an arrest of P.B. when he was not the aggressor. In addition, the complainant immediately used the charges in family court to restrict parenting time with the children and attempt to even exclude his parents from involvement with the children. The argument between the two was something that could have been handled better by both parties. Clearly the relationship was not a healthy one and both had responsibility for not de-escalating but P.B. should not have been charged. After extensive negotiations a common law peace bond was signed, and the charges of Assault and Assault with a Weapon were withdrawn.

Rex v. G.S. (2023)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates, Milton. G.S. connected with the complainant and her friend on the internet. Eventually the complainant and her friend went to G.S. apartment. During the evening, the complainant and her friend did some online shopping on G.S. computer for which G.S. paid. Wine was consumed and sexual contact occurred. The complainant left with her friend and on the way home was on the phone with her sister. Apparently when she got home there were concerns expressed by her parents to which the complainant stated that she was sexually assaulted. G.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend G.S. After obtaining the transactions receipts for all the online shopping and e-transfers, Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take a statement from the friend. A statement was obtained, and the statement was in stark contrast to the complainant’s statement. Moreover, the online shopping was extensive. All documentation was turned over to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant had fabricated the allegation to avoid problems with her parents related to her conduct. The charge of sex assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. I.I. (2023)

I.I. was charged with a domestic assault out of Milton courthouse. I.I. was going through a separation with his wife. Family law proceedings were in place. However, the two still resided together. After an argument in the kitchen, I.I. allegedly hit his wife on her buttocks and her back. It was alleged that the incident was witnessed by their son. Both the wife and the son provided statements at the police station. I.I. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya asked for copies of the family law documents and had the client complete counseling. Mariya had several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney where she was able to convince the Crown Attorney that the issues stem from dissolution of marriage, division of properties and fight for a custody of the children. The Crown Attorney agreed. The client entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of assault was withdrawn.

Rex v M.A. (2023)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto. The client retained Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers to defend him. The Crown Attorney was seeking a conviction because the client was an adult and the complainant was 15 years of age and suffered a sprain to his wrist. Ms. Condello obtained evidence that the complainant had been playing ball in front of the client’s home and the ball had caused damage to the downspout of his home. The client told the complainant numerous times to stop playing ball in front of his home because they were damaging his home. On the date of the incident, the complainant was on the client’s front porch. When the client came out of his home, he told the complainant to stay off his property. The complainant approached the client aggressively and the client pushed the complainant away defensively causing him to fall backwards and injure his arm. Although the complainant was 15 years of age, he was the same height as the client. Ms. Condello was successful in convincing the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charge.

Rex v R.R.C. (2023)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. The client was involved in an altercation with her boyfriend. When police arrived, she did not tell police what occurred however her boyfriend told police she assaulted him. Both parties had injuries. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained. It was obvious that this was a revenge charge and had no merit. Ms. Condello was successful in negotiating with the Crown for a common law peace bond after the completion of the PARS program.

P.F. v I.S.S. (2023) HRTO

Sexual harassment under the Ontario Human Rights Code

PF brought a Human Rights application against the Corporation, ISS. PF alleged that ISS had unilaterally declared her an employee and owed her funds that were paid as sources deductions. PF claimed that ISS initially paid her as an independent contractor, then arbitrarily decided that she was an employee and withheld EI and CPP deductions. PF also claimed that she was sexually harassed the owner of ISS. PF was claiming $50,000.00 in damages against ISS. Ms. Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP represented ISS. Through extensive research, Ms. Condello was able to establish that PF was not a legitimate “independent contractor” and in fact was submitting invoices to ISS using a fake and invalid HST number. Ms. Condello brought a Motion for the CRA documents; however, PF never provided any documentation proving that she had a legitimate HST number.

In assessing the text messages between the parties, Ms. Condello established that the source of the discord between the parties was the withholding of the EI and CPP deductions. Ms. Condello established that PF made racist statements to the owner of ISS – referring to herself as a white woman and referring to the Respondent as a “black man” while using racist language stating: “you can’t take the man out of the ghetto, in your case the jungle” and “see you at the finish line homie” – inferring that as a white woman she would be believed over a black man. The Respondent said that he had to pay EI and CPP after calling Employment Standards. PF threatened the Respondent stating “I’m on my way to the doctors…an eye for an eye buddy”. PF then threatened: “I’m just waiting on confirmation on what church your kids attend so I can send someone to talk to your wife’s pastor about you lol”.

Ms. Condello was successful in defending ISS, as PF withdrew her Application.

Rex v. A.B. (2023)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Assault w/Weapon withdrawn prior to setting trial dates, Toronto.  A.B. were separating.  At the time, the two were living separate and apart in the same house.  After an argument about dividing the assets of the marriage, A.B. went out.  While out of the house, he got a call by police that he was going to be charged.  A.B. surrendered and was charged.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend A.B.  After receiving the statement of the complainant as to the allegations and dates of the alleged offences, A.B. was able to provide Joseph Neuberger with GPS evidence of her whereabouts.  In addition, statements were taken from two friends of A.B. who provided alibi evidence.  The complainant provided no proof of any injuries, and her statement was not coherent in the sense of providing an honest recounting of the alleged assaults.  Joseph Neuberger put together a package for the Crown to review asserting that the allegations were false.   After two pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial, it was agreed that the charges of Assault and Assault with a Weapon would be withdrawn.

Rex v. M.M. (2023)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto.   M.M. and his wife had a dispute about financial issues.  M.M. was struck by his wife and M.M. restrained his wife.  She broke away from him and called police.  Police attended and charged M.M. with two counts of assault, one allegedly occurring a month prior.  Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the charges.  Once the disclosure was received, Joseph Neuberger contacted the assigned Crown and reviewed the details including the fact that in the police notes, it confirmed that the complainant had slapped M.M. first.  An agreement was reached that all parties were to take conflict management counseling.  The program was completed and the charges of Assault x 2 were withdrawn. The client needed the charges withdrawn asap and a trial date was 12 months out.  As such, the offer of counseling and a withdrawal was the most expeditious way of getting the charges withdrawn.

Rex v. R.M. (2023)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a three-day trial, Newmarket. R.M. met the complainant on a Chinese dating site. They communicated for a month before arranging an afternoon walk on a nature trial in York Region. The complainant after getting into his car, started to complain about wanting to be taken to a restaurant or bar in downtown Toronto. The two argued a bit but eventually went on the nature walk. The messages between the two clearly demonstrated the date was to be a nature walk. It was the middle of October on a nice Saturday afternoon. The complainant attended in a short dress with a think top and white shoes. While on the walk, the two got into a verbal argument again about not going to a restaurant. The complainant alleged that she was grabbed from behind. Then she walked back to the parking lot and allegedly R.M. grabbed the complainant and pinned her up against the car, touching her breasts and grinding against her for five to ten minutes. The complainant approached a stranger in the parking lot and police were called. R.M. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend Mr. R.M. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of a day yielding that the complainant was essentially coerced into the trail hike, and that there was NO one around the entire park. The complainant begrudgingly admitted that she did ask to go to a restaurant and that she was not dressed for a hike in the woods. Further, she took careful note of R.M.’s high end car, his expensive clothing and that he had a good job. The complainant was caught on several significant inconsistencies, including that in fact there was considerable discussions in the car about what my client did for a living, where he was from, his income and that she wanted to go to a restaurant. R.M. testified that he did not sexually assault the complainant but that once they returned to his car, he told her that she was obviously looking for a wealthy Chinese man and he accused her of being a gold digger. She got upset and got out of the car and walked to another car where she called 911. Further, Joseph Neuberger called two civilian witnesses who were present at the time the complainant walked away. Both civilian witnesses testified that the parking lot was busy, about ¾ full of cars. Further, that the park was busy with lots of hikers around including people walking their dogs and on bikes. This corroborated R.M.’s testimony and directly contradicted the complainant that it was an isolated area. The complainant clearly sought to characterize R.M. as a sexual predator. After detailed written closing submissions, R.M. was found not guilty of sex assault.

Rex v. M. I. (2023)

M.I. was charged with Assault with a Weapon against his partner, Toronto. M.I. had an argument with his common law partner, the complainant. M.I. allegedly threw a glass cup into the complainant, missing her and hitting the wall. Alcohol was a factor. M.I. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya reviewed the disclosure. Aggravating factors were that M.I. had a conviction for an assault against his previous wife and a peace bond against his current partner. Mariya had a pre-trail with the assigned Crown Attorney. Mariya was able to convince the Crown Attorney that a trial was not in the best interests of M.I., the complainant and society. The client started the PARS anger management course but has failed it. Mariya had further discussions with the prosecutor and M.I. was allowed to complete private counseling. Upon completion, the client entered into a peace bond and the criminal charge of Assault with a Weapon was withdrawn.

Rex v. Y.Y. (2023)

Y.Y. was charged with Domestic Assault, Toronto. Y.Y. was having an argument with his wife. The allegations are that while doing the dishes, Y.Y. came behind the wife and struck her with his hands. The wife called 911 and gave a statement to the police. Y.Y. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya reviewed the disclosure and then conducted two pre-trials with the Crown. Mariya provided extensive background information about the couple and the state of their marriage. In fact, Y.Y. was quite depressed. Mariya negotiated that the client would take private counselling to address the issues in the marriage and anger issues. Upon completion of counseling, the client entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. V.F. (2023)

Charges of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. V.F. was in a high conflict divorce. After filing for divorce, the complainant went to police and alleged a historic domestic assault of V.F. arguing with her and hitting her cell phone out of her hand. V.F. was charged and the complainant immediately amended her application in family court seeking sole custody due to domestic abuse. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to defend V.F. Once disclosure was received, the entire family court record was provided to the Crown. A few pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw. As such the charges of domestic assault were withdrawn.

Rex v. A.K. (2023)

Charges of Assault (x2), Assault (Choking), Theft Under, Fail to Comply (x2) withdrawn before trial, Milton. A.K. was accused of serious domestic assault charges involving his wife. The matter originally came to the attention of the police when they received a call to attend at the matrimonial home for a dispute involving the complainant and her sister-in-law, neither of whom spoke English very well and were recent immigrants to Canada. As a result of some serious language barriers and communication issues, A.K. ended up being charged by the police, instead of the sister-in-law. To make matters worse, both A.K. and his wife had been experiencing considerable stress in the marriage due to COVID lockdowns and the ongoing challenges of the Pandemic. Somehow, the true nature of the allegations was lost in translation and A.K. was charged. He subsequently retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. After a considerable review of the marital history and stressors caused by COVID, it became clear that the couple could benefit from counselling and therapy for their relationship. Michael Bury put in place a counselling plan and arranged for the involvement of therapists to address any future concerns the Crown might have regarding the marriage. Additionally, a lengthy report was prepared by another law firm which provided independent legal advice to the complainant and confirmed that she in fact did wish to resume her relationship with A.K. who was prohibited from seeing her due to his bail conditions. Initially, the Crown would not consider withdrawing the charges and trial dates were set. However, after all the upfront therapy work was completed and the independent legal advice report forwarded, the Crown agreed to reconsider the matter and meet with the complainant. Following that meeting, the charges were finally withdrawn. Not only was the couple immediately reunited, A.K. had one less concern as the matter had been reported to his professional college as a potential disciplinary matter which could have had serious impact on his license to practice.

Rex v. Z.W. (2023)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client had been dating a fellow worker and after about 7 or 8 dates, had gone back to the complainant’s home after dinner. The complainant alleged that after helping her with something related to her car, Z.W. grabbed her, carried, and forced her upstairs into a bedroom. While in the bedroom Z.W. was alleged to have taken the complainant’s clothes off and sexually assaulted her. The complainant contacted police two days later and Z.W. was charged. Z.W. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. After receiving the disclosure, what became interesting was photos taken of the complainant’s bedroom where the sexual encounter occurred and the washroom. The client had disclosed that after consensual sex, the complainant asked for money so she could buy some cloths that she wanted. This became highly relevant when the pictures of the room where Z.W. randomly took the complainant to contained in plain view two large boxes of condoms, lubricant, face masks, wipes and a waste basked with discarded condoms. Joseph Neuberger worked with Z.W. on his defence narrative and did a social media investigation which also assisted with the defence position. A 276/278 application was brought regarding areas of questioning and the admission of documents including numerous pictures Z.W. had taken of all their dates. The motion was successful. During trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her alleged version of the relationship. The complainant tried to minimize the dating and said was purely for business purposes and not romantic. Under cross-examination on numerous photographs including trips to the lake, trails and lavish dinners, the complainant finally admitted that romantic feelings had developed and there was no business discussed during the dates. There were other significant inconsistencies, but when faced with the questioning that the alleged rape consisted of Z.W. picking her up and bringing her to the second floor and randomly selecting a bedroom that by happenstance contained two boxes of condoms, lubricant and other related items, the complaint became visibly reluctant to answer questions and was evasive. The complainant eventually admitted that in fact Z.W., after sex, questioned her as to why there were some many condoms in her room and an argued ensued. Z.W. had accused her of being a sex worker and only having sex with him for material benefit. After the court considered all the evidence, the complainant was not a reliable witness and the evidence of Z.W. raised a reasonable doubt. As such, he was found not guilty of sex assault.

R. v. I.G. (2023)

I.G. was charged with two counts of Assault and one count of Utter Threat out of Toronto (former 2201 Finch Avenue West) courthouse. I.G. went to a Christmas party at her girlfriend’s house. There she got involved in a heated argument with her girlfriend’s boyfriend. I.G. allegedly pushed the boyfriend a couple of times when he tried to ask I.G. to leave the residence. Police were called and I.G. was charged with an assault. The following day, I.G. sent text messages to the girlfriend as she was upset with a charge. Following a text message exchange, the girlfriend provided a statement to police and I.G. was charged with additional count of assault and one count of utter threat. The allegation was that I.G. pushed her girlfriend’s child out of the way when she was looking for her phone at the Christmas party as well as a threat in the text message. I.G. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya requested and reviewed disclosure. A surveillance video was provided from the party. After review of the video, Mariya received instructions from the client to pursue a resolution. Mariya put together a package that included significant background information of I.G. including many struggles she endured in her life. Mariya conducted seven pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. The Crown Attorney eventually agreed that given the extensive background information provided, it was not in the public interest to pursue the prosecution and the charges were withdrawn as I.G. signed a peace bond.

R. v. K.W. (2023)

K.W. was charged with two counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Forcible Confinement and one count of Assault. The complainant was K.W.’s ex-girlfriend who became very unhappy with K.W.’s behavior after their breakup. She went to police and provided a statement with numerous domestic allegations including being sexually assault by K.W. on two occasions. K.W. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya received and analyzed disclosure provided by the Office of the Crown Attorney. There were numerous prior police occurrences. The relationship between K.W. and the complainant was troublesome with police officers being called many times but no charges being laid until the breakup. A 5-day trial was set at Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. Mariya had requested the client to provide all communications with the complainant to attempt to refute what were obviously false allegations. K.W. provided a set of text messages that the complainant sent to K.W. Mariya organized the messages and prepared a memo outlining reasonable prospect of conviction based upon the communications. Mariya set up a further pre-trial with the Crown and provided the memo and messages as defence disclosure. After the Crown reviewed the memo and messages, the Crown had a follow up discussion with the complainant. As a result, all charges against K.W. were withdrawn and the trial dates vacated. This is another important example of how messages between the complainant and person charged can provide a rich basis to contradict the narrative of the complainant.

Rex v. D.C. (2023)

Charge of Assault Bodily Harm (Domestic) withdrawn on trial date, London. D.C. was accused of a serious domestic assault charge involving his girlfriend of three months. While the relationship began well, it quickly deteriorated due to her serious alcohol addiction which resulted in false allegations being made against D.C. Despite her inability to provide a statement due to her extreme intoxication on the evening of the alleged assault, the police still chose to proceed with charges against D.C. who himself had been the victim of an attack by the girlfriend that night. D.C. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The case was a clear overreach by police and there was little chance of success. Yet the Crown continued the prosecution. The matter was set down for trial. The matter did not get reached on the first day of trial due to the Court being overbooked. The Crown refused to withdraw the charge at this stage and insisted that a new trial date be set despite a very weak case. At the next trial date, the girlfriend was not present when court commenced and claimed via email to be on her way. The Crown requested that the Court await her arrival without having any specific information as to when that might be. Michael Bury made submissions on this issue highlighting the difficulties with the Crown’s case and the apparent lack of interest by the complainant in getting to court on time and to at least provide an estimated time of arrival. Furthermore, it was argued that this was now the second trial date and that no further accommodation should be made to the Crown. The Judge agreed with defence submissions and asked whether the Crown was prepared to proceed now after having waited for the complainant for over an hour. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, instead of seeking a further adjournment given the Court’s position after Michael Bury’s submissions.

Rex. V. D.M. (2023)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Brampton. D.M. was charged with assaulting his elderly mother while trying get her to exit a plane after their flight landed. The mother suffered from dementia and deteriorating health which often caused her to not be aware of her surroundings. D.M. found himself in a frustrating situation as he and his mother were the last ones to leave the flight and she was not cooperating with him. The Crown alleged that D.M. slapped his mother in an attempt to get her attention so that she would cooperate. D.M. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him as the Crown was treating the case as elder abuse. D.M. explained that his mother had serious challenges which made dealing with her very difficult at times. He was also very concerned about the implications a criminal record might have for his professional designation. Michael Bury conducted several pretrials with the Crown and ultimately convinced the Crown that a criminal record was in no one’s best interests, especially since the mother wanted to resume contact with D.M. as soon as possible as he was her primary caregiver. The Crown agreed with a counselling proposal suggested by Michael Bury which would address any lingering safety concerns that the Crown had. After the successful completion of counselling sessions customized to address the issues in this case, the charge against D.M. was withdrawn, he entered into a peace bond, and was reunited with his mother.

Rex v. K.Y. (2023)

Charges of Assault and Unlawfully in a Dwelling withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Toronto. Unfortunately, K.Y. had a very unhealthy relationship with his girlfriend. He suspected that she was seeing another person and one day he went to her home and noticed she was with someone else. He rang the doorbell, and it became obvious that she was with another person. K.Y. lost it, and pulled his girlfriend out of the house and assaulted his girlfriend. There were several witnesses. Police were called and he was charged. K.Y. retained Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him. K.Y. was immediately remorseful and ashamed of his conduct. He was sent for intensive therapy for anger management. Both Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello did an extensive background history on K.Y. and Ms. Condello had K.Y. pursue his passion of fashion design. In fact, he was accepted into a prestigious US College program. Ms. Condello had K.Y. complete community service, provide his school transcripts and letters of character. The therapy and assessment report came back very positive. Extensive pre-trials were conducted. The complainant was consulted by the Crown and the resolution. It was negotiated that K.Y. would enter into a peace bond and all charges were to be withdrawn.

R. v. S.M. (2023)

Client was charged with two counts of Utter Threat, Scarborough Courthouse. S.M. had a newborn child with his wife. S.M.’s father-in-law lived in the same house with them. Due to sleep deprivation and tiredness both S.M. and his wife were on the edge and argued a lot. On the night of the allegations, S.M. consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and went to sleep. He was awakened by the father-in-law who asked S.M. to assist with a child. S.M. engaged in verbal argument. S.M.’s wife joined the argument. It was alleged that S.M. threatened to harm both his wife and the father-in-law. The wife called the police and S.M. was charged. S.M. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya reviewed the disclosure. S.M. wanted the charges to be resolved and for him to go back to his wife and his child as soon as possible. S.M. had a criminal record which complicated the resolution. Nevertheless, Mariya had S.M. attend counseling for anger management and alcohol addiction. Upon successful completion, Mariya had a discussion with the assigned Crown Attorney. The circumstances around the allegations – sleep deprivation, a newborn baby, etc. were brought up. The Crown Attorney agreed for S.M. to enter into a common law peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.

R. v. T.C (2023)

Charges of Assault x 2, Criminal Harassment and Assault Choking all withdrawn. T.C. was charged with these serious domestic charges including Choking, two counts of Assault and Criminal Harassment, Toronto. T.C. had a girlfriend who broke up with him. T.C. was very upset. He asked his girlfriend to meet him at her place to allow him to gather his belongings. When the girlfriend arrived at her residence, T.C. allegedly grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to the front door. Further, he allegedly slapped her and hit her on her head. Once inside the girlfriend’s residence, T.C. threw various items around the house. A landlord heard the commotion and asked both parties to leave. A witness who was outside the house when T.C. dragged his girlfriend by the hair called the police. At the police station, the girlfriend provided a historic allegation of choking. T.C. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya had reviewed disclosure and had many conversations with T.C. to get his background, future aspirations and mitigating circumstances. Further, T.C. attended counseling directed by Mariya and Joseph Neuberger, the senior partner of the firm. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney and given the upfront work and the Assessment Therapy report which highlighted a number of emotional issues impacting his judgement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges.

R. v. W.A. (2023)

Charge of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. W.A. was in a relationship with a woman who had a teenage daughter. The allegation was that W.A, his partner and her daughter were sitting in the living room and eating takeout. The daughter alleged that W.A. placed his hand on her thigh. The daughter threw the food in the air and ran out of the living room. A few days later the daughter called the police and provided a statement. W.A. was charged. W.A. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko received disclosure and did a detailed defence investigation. She found out that the complainant had previously reported a sexual assault complaint against W.A. and W.A. was charged with sexual interference a few years ago. The previous charges were withdrawn as the daughter did not want to proceed with the charges. However, in her recent statement, the daughter stated that she was told by her mother to tell the Crown Attorney that she didn’t want to proceed with the charges. As such, the Crown Attorney had full intention to proceed with the current charges. Mariya spoke to the mother of the daughter and got a full background on the daughter as well as the mother’s side of the story. It was clear that the daughter was going through some difficulties in life and was experiencing a mental health crisis. The mother had her daughter attend counseling. The mother advised that the mental health of the daughter was improved and that the daughter’s view on the events that led to the allegations changed. The mother was able to have the daughter consent to providing details on the therapy, assessment, and alternating facts of the allegations. The daughter retained her own lawyer who got in touch with Mariya. The lawyer stated that the daughter indicated that the hand on her knee by W.A. was not sexual in nature. The daughter noted that she disliked W.A. as she saw him as someone who was trying to take her late father’s place. This was motive to fabricate. The lawyer for the daughter and Mariya worked collaboratively to address the fabrication. The lawyer for the daughter wrote a letter to the Crown Attorney, met with the Crown Attorney, and had a follow up discussion with Mariya. Mariya then conducted a Judicial Pre-Trial laying out the motive to fabricate, the obvious issues with the credibility of the complainant and importantly the fact that any such touching was NOT SEXUAL in nature but simply a moment of affection toward a stepdaughter with no other surrounding evidence to suggest a sexual act. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

Rex v. L.S. (2023)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2 and Utter Death Threats withdrawn prior to setting trial dates, Toronto. L.S. and his wife had been married for about eight years but for the six months up to the date of L.S. being charged, the couple had numerous arguments about the family finances. About two days before L.S. was charged, the arguments got intense, and the complainant slapped L.S. and then L.S. got physical. The police were called and L.S. was charged with the domestic abuse allegations. L.S. retained Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang made arrangements for L.S. to see a Mandarin speaking therapist as clearly there was an unhealthy dynamic in the manner in which L.S. and the complainant communicated. Joseph Neuberger assisted with speaking with the family lawyers and eventually through mediated discussions, L.S. and the complainant wanted to reconcile. A bail variation was granted so that L.S. could be in contact with his wife and after therapy and several pre-trials, the charges were formally withdrawn.

Rex v. F.Z. (2023)

Client found not guilty of two counts of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. This was a historic judgement in which our client was found by the court to be a male victim of domestic (emotional and psychological) violence relevant to his vigilance in seeking consent for sex and his apologetic nature with the complainant. F.Z. and the complainant were married for some two years, and the relationship deteriorated. F.Z. wanted to end the marriage and after asking for a divorce the complainant left the home and launched family court proceedings. F.Z. had transferred back to his parents half a million dollars that was provided for the couple to buy a home. The complainant sent an email to F.Z. stating that she separated from F.Z. the day before F.Z. sent funds back to his parents. About a month later, the complainant attended the police station and gave a statement alleging to historical sexual assault allegations. The complainant provided two threads of messages that she purported to demonstrate that F.Z. had apologized for the sexual assaults. The complainant in her family court proceedings alleged sexual and other abuse and sough maximum financial support and damages. F.Z. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him on the charges. After careful review of the disclosure, Joseph obtained from the client hundreds of messages over the course of the marriage that when viewed in a cumulative fashion demonstrated that F.Z. was very much under the control of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger drafted and filed a 276/278 application to introduce at trial other sexual history evidence and all the messages and documents, including filings in the family court proceedings, to undermine the credibility of the complainant. The application was successful. At trial extensive cross-examination of the complainant revealed that the complainant was disingenuous and highly manipulative. The messages and family court material undermined her credibility. Further, Joseph Neuberger, sent F.Z. for assessment and therapy to determine if he was suffering from a disorder because of emotional and psychological abuse. It was apparent to us that F.Z. was indeed abused. At trial in the defence case, the client was called and denied the allegations but also gave details of the abuse he suffered and why it factored into how careful and cautious he was in seeking any consent for sex. Cross-examination of the complainant critically demonstrated that F.Z. had in fact been respectful and cautious about consent up to the day the first alleged sexual assault allegedly occurred. The defence expert psychiatric evidence showed that F.Z. exhibited symptoms of complex trauma consistent with abuse by his wife, and that his behavior consistent with the abuse resulted in him being compliant, apologetic, and extremely careful about how he interacted in all aspects of his life with his wife. At the conclusion of the trial, we drafted written closing submissions quoting extensively from the trial evidence with case law to support the defence that F.Z. was in fact innocent and falsely accused. The Court concluded that the complaint was not credible and that indeed F.Z.’s conduct was consistent with suffering from complex trauma because of being an abused spouse. As such, F.Z. was found not guilty of both charges of sexual assault.

Rex v. U.M. (2023)

Client found not guilty of Assault, Assault Choking, human trafficking x 2, Material Benefit x 2, Procuring, and Advertise Sexual Services, after six-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. U.M. was asked by his marijuana supplier to assist with a young lady who came in from a northern part of Ontario. U.M. put her up at two hotels, under his name, address, and points reward number and then later in the week was alleged to have trafficked her for sex. U.M. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, to represent him on the charges. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison, an advocate for falsely accused men, worked on the file. The case was carefully analyzed, and considerable time was placed on drafting cross-examination of the complainant and a witness who was originally charged with the same offences but let off of the charges to give evidence against U.M. At trial, cross-examination was detailed, and persistent which resulted in raising very significant issues of credibility and reliability. The client was prepared to testify and did so at trial. The trial judge quoted extensively from cross-examination of both Crown witnesses and the defence written closing submissions. Key elements were the surveillance footage of the client who did nothing to conceal his identify when booking the young lady into two hotels, no financial documentation to support any funds from sex trafficking, poor recall due to drug use, no actual evidence of any appointments to meet clients, and complete freedom of the complainant to contact her family, and roam around Toronto. There was so much evidence contradicting the complainant that was outlined in the closing written submissions. Further, the other Crown witnesses had significant deficits in her evidence including her interest in the outcome of the trial to ensure her obligation to cooperate with police to give evidence against U.M. so that she was not charged with the same offences. At the conclusion of the matter, the Court determined that U.M. was not guilty of all offences.

Rex v. V.S. (2023)

Client found not guilty of a 9 count Information of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault choking x 2 and Assault x 3 after a five-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. V.S. was in a deteriorating marriage. There were two children, a daughter, and a son. V.S. was travelling a fair amount each month and hence was away from the home missing time with the children. In the fall of 2020, the complainant, the ex-wife, had an argument with V.S. about his travels and said he should limit his time with the children as it is too hard on them when he travels. The couple had other arguments, but the marriage was failing and V.S. asked for a divorce and she had found a file the contained correspondence with a family lawyer. Over the next couple of months, the children started to be more distant, and his daughter was becoming more and more defiant with his directions at home. In January of 2021, an argument ensued between V.S. and his daughter about her use of her cell phone and being on social media during school hours. V.S. went to grab the phone and the argument escalated. V.S. went out for a pre-scheduled business meeting and when he returned, he was arrested and charged with sexual assault allegations as against his daughter, and the assault charges as against his daughter, his then 5-year-old son and his wife. The one count against his wife alleged several different sets of allegations of domestic abuse. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, were retained to defend him on the allegations. Joseph referred V.S. to a family lawyer and had him commence a divorce application and to seek some access to his children. Joseph worked closely with the family lawyer, and sure enough the Reply in the family law case from the complainant wife detailed all of the criminal allegations and added additional sexual allegations involving the daughter and son. The complainant wife was seeking unequal distribution of assets, sole possession of the house, sole custody of the children and $100,000 in damages for domestic abuse. The family court documents provided Joseph Neuberger with a rich source of information to cross-examine the former wife and to allege parental alienation. In fact, given the statements of the children, it was a very clear case of parental alienation. A 278 Application was brought to tender various documents, messages and pictures that illustrated over seven years a very close bonded relationship with both children. Joseph and Diana spent considerable time with the client helping him get ready for trial. He was emotional and worried about the trial. In addition, a detailed cross-examination was drafted. At trial, Joseph was able to establish through cross-examination material inconsistencies in the evidence of each witness, that the younger son was confused and heavily influenced by his sister and mother during the fall of 2020 and including just before going to the police being told about memories he forgot. Even before trial, it came out in cross-examination that while the wife, and the two children were driving to court, the complainant wife told the young son to remember details that were NOT in his statement to police. Under cross-examination, the complainant wife denied saying anything to the son or daughter. In cross-examination of the daughter, it came out not only that her sexual assault allegations were inconsistent and not plausible, but that during the fall of 2020 the complainant wife, her mother, had co-opted the daughter to help her get sole custody of her and her brother. There was a vast amount of evidence developed through cross-examination to demonstrate collusion and tainting of evidence. V.S. testified and denied the allegations. After the evidence, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed closing written submissions and the Court ultimately found V.S. not guilty of all charges.

Rex v. M.P. (2023)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Milton. M.P. had a close relationship with a friend at school. The two communicated each night over snapchat and talked at school. M.P. developed romantic feelings for the complainant and one day the two planned a “hang-out” at M.P.’s home. During the afternoon, the two became intimate but the end of the encounter did not go well as something cruel was said by the complainant to M.P. M.P. told her that she knew where the door was, and he stopped communicating with her. Over the course of the summer of 2021, he started to hear rumours amongst friends that he had raped the complainant. When back at school the rumours grew and M.P. asked to speak with the complainant. The two met and the complainant recorded their conversation. M.P. apologized but asked to not spread such rumours. After the talk, the complainant went to police and M.P. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend M.P. After extensive defence investigation, it became clear there was a negative response to M.P. cutting off contact with the complainant who then went on a campaign to ruin M.P.’s reputation with friends. She spread rumours and the rumours and allegations grew as time went on. At trial, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant was incredibly evasive and vague on particulars to avoid obvious untruthful evidence. There were serious inconsistencies but facts that she finally admitted under extensive cross-examination that in fact she had been participating in all sexual contact. Further, the complainant decided to only turn over to police an edited recording of their meeting and it was clear that M.P. was apologizing to avoid further conflict with the complainant. M.P. who testified at trial was believed by the Court on crucial facts such that he was found to not have committed certain alleged sexual acts. The judge at the end of the day was unable to determine what sexual acts had occurred and found the evidence of the complainant unreliable. As a result, M.P. was found not guilty of sexual assault.

Rex v. A.K. (2023)

Client found factually innocent of sexual assault and assault after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was found not only not guilty, but the Court believed the testimony of A.K. that he did NOT sexually assault the complainant or assault her and specifically disbelieved the complainant. This is an important case to note that with proper analysis and preparation the truth can prevail. A.K. was a licenced technician who repairs dental equipment. He was called on an emergency to attend a dental office to repair a dental chair so that the office could operate and would not have to cancel patients. A.K. attended and the office receptionist showed him the chair and after inspection it turned out the receptionist had tampered with a critical part of the chair. A.K. told the complainant that he would have to advise the dentist office owner that a new part will need to be ordered and there may be other damage. There was an argument about the complainant feeling A.K. would wind up getting her fired. He left. The complainant about an hour later made a complaint to the office manager alleging sex assault and then went to police. A.K. was charged. He retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger went in depth with the client about what happened and prepared the client to testify and drafted a detailed cross-examination of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able through cross-examination to establish the complainant fabricated the allegations and the client was found not guilty of sexual assault and assault. As noted above the client was found by the Court to be factually innocent.

Rex v. A.D. (2023)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial and after 278 motion on records, Ontario Court, Pembroke. A.D. had shared custody of his daughter. After and exchange of the daughter, there was complaint from the 6-year-old daughter about being touched by her father in her private area during bathing time. An investigation commenced and A.D. was charged with sex assault and sexual interference. Joseph Neuberger, of Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend A.D. Joseph obtained medical records related to the child having UTIs because of improper cleaning with medical notes instructing the parents to assist with cleaning to ensure the area in question was cleaned especially after the child when to the washroom. A.D. provided details as to what he followed to instruction and assist his daughter. He was in a complete shock about the allegation. Further, a careful analysis was done of the statement of the young child with a memo breaking down the issues with the statement. Suffice to say, there were major issues with the content that the child, even with the current case law regarding how to assess a child witness, the evidence could not be relied upon. The memo and all medical records were disclosed to the Crown. Unfortunately, the Crown decided to prosecute, and the matter was set for trial and a 278 motion to admit the medical records. After the motion record was filed with a detailed explanation of how the records were relevant, with laying out the defence and the issues with the statement, the Crown withdrew the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference. * This case shows how easy as a parent it is to get charged with an innocent touch for the health of the child when taken to an extreme by authorities.

Rex v. R.R. (2023)

Client found not guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault after a five-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa. The Complainant was an employee of R.R. who worked as a Bartender at his restaurant from December 2015 to April 2018. She alleged that over a course of two years, R.R. abused his position of authority and forced her to have sexual relations with him. In her police statement, the Complainant alleged that the first incident took place within three months of her employment when she walked into R. R’s office to cash out for the night. As she entered his office, R.R. allegedly locked the door and kissed her without her consent. The Complainant then alleged that within a month from this incident, R.R. forcefully took her to the parking lot and made her perform oral sex on him. Shortly thereafter, she also alleged that R.R. would force her to have sexual intercourse with him every Sunday and Monday nights after she finished her shift. The Complainant resigned in 2018 and reported him to the police in 2021 to have him charged with sexual assault. R.R. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. The defence gathered from the client a vast amount of messages, her job application, and photographs which undermined the Complainant’s evidence. In her statement, the Complainant stated that she dreaded working on Mondays, had no relationship with R.R., never flirted with him, and stopped all communication with him after her resignation. The defence brought a section 276/278 Application prior to trial to admit “other sexual activity” evidence and messages as relevant evidence to rebut the narrative of the complainant and her characterization of the relationship. The Application was argued over the course of two days and was successful. The Application was drafted laying out in great detail the evidence that undermined the complainant’s version of events as well as the defence evidence. The Application was successful, and all material were ruled admissible. The matter went to trial and Yuvika Johri cross-examined the complainant for two days. In cross-examination the complainant denied a number of obvious facts that were set out in the messages and asserted that she never had a relationship with R.R. Through extensive cross examination, Yuvika Johri was able to establish significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant to the police with her in-court testimony. After a five-day trial, R.R. was found not guilty of all sexual assault charges.

Rex v. W.W. (2023)

Charges of three counts of assault, forcible confinement, and mischief under $5,000 withdrawn, Toronto. The complainant alleged a domestic assault, wherein W.W. was alleged to have confined the complainant in his home after assaulting her and broken her cell phone. Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges. After a detailed review of the complainant’s statement along with the absence of any injuries that would normally be expected with the assaults described, Liam Thompson was able to successfully demonstrate that there was significant reason to doubt the complainant’s version of events. The Crown concluded that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction, and the charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

Rex v G. L. (2023)

Charges of domestic assault, and assault by choking were withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. The complainant, the client’s daughter, alleged that the client had hit and choked her as a result of an argument over house work. Mr. Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the case. Liam met with the client for several hours going through the history of issues with the daughter including gathering source documents from school as to defiant behavior in and outside of the home. G.L. had not in fact touched the complainant but was attempting to enforce house rules that the complainant did not want to follow. The complainant suffered no injuries and the police notes specifically stated that there were no visible injuries to the complainant including on or about her neck. Liam Thompson presented the Crown with a memo regarding a break down of the complainant’s statement showing implausibility of the allegations along with some source material to show the complainant most likely made false accusations to avoid discipline. After detailed discussions with the Crown, Liam was able to demonstrate that the Crown did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction and that a continued prosecution of the matter was not in the public interest. The charges of assault and assault choking were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

Rex v. L.P. (2023)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to trial after filing detailed 276/278 application for admission of sexual history evidence and messages between the complainant and L.P. L.P. knew the complainant for many many years. The two had dated in their past. The two got reacquainted when the complainant reached out as L.P.’s wife was unwell and L.P. had been searching for a caregiver to help. L.P. was approached by the complainant to assist but thought it was not a good idea. L.P. was lonely and the two began to spend time together. The complainant asked for financial assistance with a few issues and L.P. helped by giving several loans totalling over $15,000. The complainant and L.P. became intimate. L.P. broke off the relationship when he thought that the only reason the complainant was with him was for financial assistance. The friendship soured and L.P. sued the complainant in Small Claims court for the loans. In the defence to the lawsuit, the complainant alleged a sexual assault. She filed the defence counter suing for damages for sexual assault. She then decided to go to the police and L.P. was charged with sexual assault. L.P. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The case proceeded out of the Brampton court. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time gathering the history and obtaining a large volume of messages, voice messages that the client saved, and pictures sent by the complainant to L.P. Upon review of the lawsuit documents, a handwritten note was discovered tendered by the complainant that was considerably different than her statement to police. Further, Joseph disclosed to the Crown the lawsuit documents, and a series of important messages that undermined the complainant’s version of events. The Crown would not withdraw. As such, trial dates were set and motion dates to seek to admit and cross-examine on other sexual history evidence and the large volume of messages and pictures. Joseph Neuberger drafted a 65 page Notice and Factum laying out the defence and the relevance of the history, messages, and pictures as well as the contradictory note of the complainant. After filing the material, further discussions took place with the Crown and as a result the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.

R. v. N.A. (2023)

Charges of two counts of Sexual Assault and two counts of Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto, 2201 Finch courthouse. After a high conflict divorce, N.A. won custody of both his children, and they used to live in a two-bedroom town home. Although the children lived with N.A., he allowed them to visit their mother and have cordial relations with her. The older son slept in his own room and N.A. shared his bedroom with the Complainant, his 14-year-old daughter. The Complainant alleged that on one occasion, while she was sleeping in the shared bed with N.A., she woke up to him moving his body closer to hers. She alleged that N.A. put his hands on her stomach and moved it upwards to fondle her breasts. The Complainant alleged that on multiple occasions thereafter, the accused would reach over to touch her breasts while appearing to be sleeping. During an outing with the children, the older son and N.A. got into an argument over an unrelated issue when the son confronted N.A. about touching the Complainant inappropriately. This interaction was video recorded by the Complainant. Due to this argument, the son along with the Complainant decided to move back with their mother. Once at the mother’s home, the Complainant disclosed the alleged incidences to her mother and the police were called. N.A. was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent N.A. against the charges. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and found inconsistencies in the Complainant’s statement. Yuvika had extensive discussions with the crown and showed that not only were there inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, but there was also evidence of the Complainant’s mother grooming the children against N.A. N.A was previously charged with domestic violence against the Complainant’s mother and there was reason to believe that she held animosity towards N.A. since before they separated. After conducting a few Judicial Pre-Trials, all charges were withdrawn against N.A. as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. It was important to have these charges withdrawn as N.A. was a chartered accountant and a conviction would lead to serious consequences from him.

R. v. T.E. (2023)

Charges of four counts of Assault, one count of Sexual Assault, and one count of Utter Threats were withdrawn prior to setting trial dates at Oshawa. T.E’s common law spouse (Complainant 1) and her daughter (Complainant 2) alleged that T.E. would abuse alcohol and have arguments with both of them. Both Complainants alleged that in his state of intoxication, he would assault them and threatened them to vacate his house. The assaults would range from punches to squeezing the Complainant’s face. On one occasion, Complainant 2 alleged that T.E. sexually assaulted her by pulling her pants down and exposing her genitals. She alleged that she tried to push T.E. off of her, but he continued touching her around her vaginal area and chest area. On the day of T.E.’s arrest, Complainant 2 alleged that she was having an argument with T.E when he threatened to kill Complainant 1. Complainant 1 was not at home at the time of this argument, however, upon her arrival, she alleged that T.E. broke into her bedroom and engaged in an argument. She alleged that T.E. sprayed her with a water bottle and when Complainant 2 tried to intervene, he allegedly did the same to her as well. Police were called and T.E. was charged with four counts of Assault, one count of sexual assault, and one count of utter threats. The charge of sexual assault was disclosed by Complainant 2 after T.E.’s arrest. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent T.E. against the charges. Disclosure showed that all parties had numerous prior occurrences with the police and some of them was T.E. calling the police to report the Complainants. Disclosure also showed that Complainant 2 was a sex offender who had a prior conviction for sexually assaulting a minor. After having extensive discussions with the crown, Yuvika was able to show several weaknesses in the crown’s case and as a result, all charges were withdrawn against T.E.

R. v. N.C. (2023)

Charge of Asault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates at Milton. It was alleged that N.C. was driving with her ex-boyfriend when a verbal altercation ensued between them. The Complainant alleged that N.C. became angry with him and started slapping him in the face multiple times when he told her that she could not return to work. N.C. used to work at the same company as the Complainant and his superiors had advised him to inform N.C. of her termination. The Complainant alleged that in her anger, N.C. grabbed his ears while driving, jumped onto his lap in the driver’s seat, and began squeezing his face. To get rid of N.C., the Complainant pulled over and allegedly jumped out of the car and called the police. N.C. was charged with one count of simple assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent N.C against the charge. After reviewing the disclosure and speaking with the assigned crown, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw the charge against N.C. on condition that N.C. undergo upfront therapy. Charge of simple assault was withdrawn by way of an 810-peace bond.

Rex v. M.A. (2023)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after a seven-day jury trial, Toronto. M.A. was jointly charged with a friend after an evening at a pub with friends where he met a lady. The group returned to M.A.’s friend apartment where the two ladies came along. Everyone continued to enjoy the evening, and the complainant attended a bedroom with the co-accused. M.A. and another female went downstairs from the apartment and were having a smoke. A short while later a call was received with the complainant requesting her friend to come back to the apartment because she was “uncomfortable and wanted to go home”. Both M.A. and the lady with him attended the apartment and noticed the complainant and the co-accused were in a bedroom having sex. After the complainant and her friend left, the complainant went to police three days later and alleged a sexual assault with the co-accused and advised that M.A. had joined in when he came into the apartment and had manually touched her. M.A. was charged with Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The statements of the complainants had material inconsistencies, but the second lady confirmed a fair amount of the evidence of the complainant. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, during which Joseph Neuberger carefully cross-examined the complainant and the witness raising issues of intoxication impacting their capacity to perceive and recall the alleged events, creating a material inconsistency in the version of the complainant such that she testified in cross-examination to three versions of how the sex assault of M.A. allegedly occurred, and evidence of the witness that in fact her statement to police was not accurate and she did not see what she said she witnessed eventually agreeing in cross-examination that all she saw was M.A. touch the outer knee area of the complainant and nothing more. M.A. was well prepared for trial and gave evidence at trial. Joseph Neuberger delivered a strong closing address to the jury and M.A. was found not guilty.

Rex v. M.F. (2022)

M.F. was charged with Assault, Assault with Weapon, and Breach of Recognizance/Peace Bond out of 1000 Finch courthouse, Toronto. M.F. was bound by a s. 810 peace bond at the time of her conflict with her husband. It was alleged that M.F. became jealous over her husband’s text messages she saw on his phone and started to hit him. Furthermore, it was alleged that she took her laptop and started hitting her husband with her laptop. The husband called police and M.F. was arrested. M.F retained Mariya Protsenko from Neuberger and Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The aggravating factor was the fact that M.F. was previously charged with a Domestic Assault on her ex-husband and she entered into a s.810 peace. Mariya put together a large volume of information on the client – background, employment, status in Canada, text messages with the husband, photos provided by the client, as well as the client’s version of events that would ultimately have been her Defence at trial. Mariya had a number of discussions with the Crown Attorney and encouraged the Crown Attorney to wait until M.F. completed counseling and the counseling report is produced. At the end, the therapy report was excellent, and the Crown recognized deficiencies with the complainant husband’s evidence on the assault allegations. The Crown Attorney agreed to have M.F. enter a common law peace bond and the charges against her were withdrawn.

Rex v. Y.W (2023)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket Court. The Y.W.’s wife is works in the home and had a particularly busy day. When she found the living room was a big mess with son’s toys, she was so mad that she threw the toy blocks on the ground. The toy blocks bounced back and hit the forehead of the son, causing bruises and swells. Y.W. tried to calm the wife down by holding her waist. She was in the fit of anger and called the police for assault by Y.W. The police attended and charged Y.W. with assault. Y.W. retained Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. Daisy obtained the disclosure and the pictures at the scene and the injury of son taken by Y.W. Based on the detailed background information, Daisy conducted a meeting with the Crown to explain what happened. The Crown agreed to the completion of the PARs program by Y.W. and withdrew the charge of Domestic Assault.

Rex v. X.L (2023)

Charge of Assault with Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket Court. X.L. and the complainant had a relationship for a short period of time. When X.L. broke up with the complainant, the complainant posted some pictures of X.L. and her son in Wechat, and in an emotional moment and made bad comments about their relationship history. X.L. went to his place asking him to delete the posts, but he refused. X.L. took his phone from the table and deleted the post. The complainant called the police alleging X.L. hit him in his chest with the phone. X.L. was charged with assault with weapon. X.L. retained Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. After obtaining and reviewing the statements of the complaint and the police officers’ notes, Daisy found one of officer noted X.L had a bad shoulders and could not be handcuffed. Daisy contacted X.L. and confirmed that X.L had a serious frozen shoulder so that it is even difficult for her to lift the arm for dressing. Then Daisy obtained the medical report from X.L.’s family doctor and provided it to the Crown. Through extensive discussion with the Crown, The Crown agreed there is a reasonable doubt that she hit the complaint by phone with bad shoulder. The charge was withdrawn.

Rex v. A.M. (2023)

client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Utter Threats, after a five-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.M. was in a relationship with the complainant for three years. It was not the best relationship as the two often accused each other of infidelity. In December 2018, the complainant had been monitoring A.M.’s Facebook account and caught that he had been with another woman. The two had an argument and the complainant moved out of the home. For several months, the two communicated via email, WhatsApp and met. There continued to be arguments but there was a decision to reconcile until A.M. had accused the complainant of only wanting his money and had asked for her to repay him a significant amount of money. Further, the complainant was angry that A.M. and his cousin were allegedly sharing pictures that she wanted to be kept private (in actuality, there was nothing to this allegation). The complainant went to police in August of 2019. A.M. went to the police and A.M. was charged with the criminal offences. A.M. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. After Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the disclosure, he had A.M.’s cell phone sent to a tech expert to extract deleted messaging between A.M. and the complainant. Over 1000 messages was extracted including videos, pictures and a host of images post-dating the end of the relationship, and prior to the end of the relationship. A vast amount of the material was highly relevant to refuting the complainant’s narrative and specific facts of each of the charges. The charges ranged in dates covering 2018 up to December 26th, 2018. The complainant had asserted in her statement to police that after she left the home of A.M., she wanted nothing to do with A.M. and never saw him again in person and rarely communicated with him. The vast number of messages, images and videos, undermined her evidence. Joseph Neuberger obtained the meta data to confirm the dates of all messages and images. The defence brough a section 276/278 Application prior to trial to admit “other sexual activity” evidence and messages as relevant evidence to rebut the narrative of the complainant and her characterization of the relationship both before December 26th and after. The Application was successful, and all material was ruled admissible. The matter went to trial and Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for two and half days prior to asking for an adjournment to then bring a mid-trial application to admit other “other sexual history” evidence and further messages. In cross-examination the complainant, when answering, denied a number of obvious facts that were set out in the messages and asserted that she never attended A.M.’s home after December 26th among other facts that were inaccurate. The mid-trial Application was carefully drafted, argued and succeeded in full. After the ruling on the mid-trial Application, the complainant refused to attend for further cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, and the Crown conceded a directed verdict of not guilty on all charges of sexual assault and assault.

Rex v. S.J. (2022)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Newmarket. S.J. was charged with Assault arising from S.J.’s daughter having an altercation with a classmate. Later on, the mother of the classmate came to the house of S.J. to talk about the altercation. The two had an argument and S.J. ended up striking the classmate on her face. Then S.J. and the mother of the classmate started to fight with each other. Afterward, the mother of the classmate called police. Police arrived, spoke to the classmate and her mother after which S.J was charged with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to represent her. Mariya spoke to S.J. in length and received the background story for the altercation between S.J.’s daughter and the classmate. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented S.J.’s side of the story with some corroborating information gathered during the defence investigation. An agreement was made for S.J. to complete conflict management therapy and upon completion the charge was formally withdrawn.

Rex v. B.O.C. (2022)

Charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Forcible Confinement withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. B.O. was having a break-up argument with his live-in girlfriend. Tempers got heated and B.O. asked for the complainant to leave. The complainant went down to the concierge and complained of being assaulted. Police were called and B.O. was charged. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges. Once the disclosure was obtained, Joseph Neuberger compared the complainant’s statement with video footage provided by the client. Clearly the video footage provided by the client did not show any physical altercation, but what was interesting was the complainant’s description of the alleged assaults that was wildly different that even the unfolding of the argument that was captured on the video footage. The condo had internal footage in the main hallway and common areas in the home, but not the bedroom. Nevertheless, the complainant had described being pinned up against the front door of the condo while being yelled at to leave. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the video footage to the assigned Crown along with the transcribed statement of the complainant. As a result, all charges were withdrawn. * Unfortunately, not all accused persons have internal surveillance in the main and common areas of their home. Fortunately, this client did.

Rex v. P.M. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn after successful Application brought under section 276/278 of the Criminal Code for the admission of prior sexual history evidence and documents, Newmarket. P.M. was charged several years after the end of his relationship with the complainant. The two dated in high school for about a year and a half. The two broke up and remained friends. Over the course of the time, the complainant started to suggest in messages and over calls that he had forced her into sex on a number of occasions that was not consensual. P.M. remained friends with the complainant but tried to distance himself. After a number of communications over the course of weeks, the complainant stopped communication and then went to the police and P.M. was charged with two counts of historical sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger had Diana Davison assist on the defence, and there was considerable time devoted to investigating the past history o f P.M. and the complainant including gathering all past communications that totalled over 1000 messages, and several letters. The documentation was extremely helpful in understanding the background to the relationship but more importantly the activities between P.M. and the complainant was unusually detailed in the messages. In particular, one letter sent by the complainant just prior to the end of the relationship was highly relevant as to the true nature of their intimacy and significantly rebutted the narrative of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger prepared for trial and brought a motion to introduce prior sexual history evidence, and a series of relevant communications including this one letter. The Application, Factum and Affidavit of the client was drafted and filed. The Application was argued over the course of two days and was successful. The Application and Factum was drafted laying out in great detail the evidence that undermined the complainant’s version of events as well as the defence evidence. The drafting of these applications is very important to laying out a foundation for the admission of prior sexual history and communications between the parties. Once the Application was granted, the Crown spoke with Joseph Neuberger, and a determination was made that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the two charges of sex assault were withdrawn.

Rex v B.G. (2022)

B.G. was charged with Voyeurism, Distribution of an Intimate image and Assault, Newmarket. BG discovered through social media that her boyfriend of 3 years was living with and engaged to another woman. RG and the fiancé discussed the relationship over Facebook messenger. In responding to the fiancé’s questions, RG sent photos to prove the relationship. In retaliation the boyfriend sent photos of RG to her family members and then made a complaint to police providing a different version of events. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend BG. Grace Condello conducted extensive research regarding the case law and the facts in the case including extensive messaging between B.G. and the complainant. Grace prepared a package to the Crown Attorney’s office to establish that it was not in the public interest to prosecutor B.G. Thus, the charges of Voyeurism, Distribution of an Intimate Image and Assault were withdrawn.

Rex v. R.A. (2022)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trials, Brampton. The client and his wife were having a serious argument. The complainant left the house and went to her brother’s house. Later that evening she called police and R.A was charged. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello were retained to defend R.A. R.A. immediately gave Joseph and Grace a screenshot of a text sent the day after he was charged stating “I am really sorry I lied to police that you hurt me. My brother made me call police and lie about you.” That message was turned over to the officer in charge and the Crown with a letter asking for an investigation into a false statement and possibly a charge of public mischief. Nothing was done about the text. When disclosure was received the statement was extremely brief and so vague it undermined the allegation. Just an assertion that R.A. punched the complainant as he was upset about something about the house. No details or real context. No injuries. After having a series of pre-trials, the Crown agreed that there was no basis to move forward with the criminal case. The charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. Z.C. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to the preliminary hearing, Toronto. Mr. Z.C. and his wife lived with his mother and his stepfather in the early 2000s. They moved out of the home in 2006 and in 2021 Z.C. was arrested and charged with historical allegations of sex assault and sexual interference. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph conducted a defence investigation, including a history and timeline of during what years and months the complainant and Z.C. were actually living in the same home as well as who was living in the home. From other sources it appeared that the complainant had enjoyed a close relationship with Z.C. and his wife. There were no signs of any conflict or abuse. Z.C. was full time employed and extremely busy during those years over which the sexual assaults were alleged. In addition, the complainant stated in her police interview that she had taken a criminology course in university that caused her to recall and come forward with the allegations. There was a significant issue about “recovered memory” and reliability of the memories. A preliminary hearing was scheduled but extensive pre-trials and discussions with the assigned Crown resulted in an agreement that Z.C. would sign a common law peace bond and all charges would be withdrawn.

Rex v. S.J. (2022)

S.J. was charged with Assault out of the Newmarket courthouse. S.J.’s daughter had an altercation with a classmate. Later on, the mother of the classmate came to the house of S.J. to talk about the altercation. The two had an argument and S.J. ended up striking the classmate on her face. Then S.J. and the mother of the classmate started to fight with each other. Afterward, the mother of the classmate called police. Police arrived, spoke to the classmate and her mother and charged S.J with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent her. Mariya spoke to S.J. in length and received the background story for the altercation between S.J.’s daughter and the classmate. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented S.J.’s side of the story with some corroborating information. S.J. completed counseling. Upon completion, Mariya presented a report to the Crown Attorney and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. P.N. (2022)

Charges of Assault x 4, Utter Threat x 4 and Assault with Weapon all withdrawn prior to setting the trial date, Brampton. The client discovered the complainant (his wife) was having an affair. The two got into a heated argument and P.N. wanted the complainant to leave the home. The complainant called police and P.N. was charged with the above domestic offences. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. The complainant’s statement including historical allegations two of the Assault charges were during a time when P.N was in Vietnam. We were able to obtain his former travel itinerary, credit card statements and other evidence to establish that it was impossible for him to have committed two of the offences. Once disclosed the complainant retained counsel probably due to fear of a charge of public mischief. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the client signed a common law peace bond, and all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Rex v. S.J. (2022)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Newmarket. S.J.’s daughter had an altercation with a classmate. Later on, the mother of the classmate came to the house of S.J. to talk about the altercation. The two had an argument and S.J. ended up striking the classmate on her face. Then S.J. and the mother of the classmate started to fight with each other. Afterward, the mother of the classmate called police. Police arrived, spoke to the classmate and her mother and charged S.J with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent her. Mariya spoke to S.J. at length and received the background story for the altercation between S.J.’s daughter and the classmate. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented S.J.’s side of the story with some corroborating information. S.J. completed counseling. Upon completion, Mariya presented a report to the Crown Attorney and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Rex v. M.G. (2022)

Charges of Assault x 2, Assault – Choke, withdrawn on the day of trial, Brampton. M.G. was in an argument with his wife. When M.G. attempted to call his wife’s parents for assistance, the complainant lunged for the cell phone causing injury to M.G. M.G. pushed the complainant away and went to a bedroom. The complainant, his wife, pursued and called 911. When police arrived, M.G. was arrested with various offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. M.G. made a video recording of when the complainant pursed him into the bedroom. The recording was saved for the defence. In addition, the defence obtained medical records and evidence establishing that the injuries to M.G.’s arm were the result of the complainant digging her nails into M.G. causing not insignificant injuries. Prior to trial, the video and medical evidence was disclosed by Joseph Neuberger, but the Crown wanted to pursue the case. On the day of trial, the complainant, knowing the evidence against her, refused to testify. The Crown withdrew all charges.

Rex v. B.G. (2022)

Charges of Voyeurism, Distribution of Intimate Images, and Assault, all withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. B.G. discovered through social media that her boyfriend of three years was living with and engaged to another woman. B.G. and the fiancé discussed the relationship over Facebook messenger. In responding to the fiancé’s questions, B.G. sent photos to prove the relationship. In retaliation the boyfriend sent photos of B.G. to her family members and then made a criminal complaint to police providing a very different versions of events. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, as her defence lawyers. Grace Condello conducted an extensive investigation into all of the communications between B.G. and the fiancé. Then Grace Condello prepared a detailed memorandum for the Crown outlining the history and a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. After extensive pre-trial discussions, all charges were withdrawn.

Rex v. R.K (2022)

Charges of Assault, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Assault Choaking, Threaten Bodily Harm, all withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. R.K. had been in a bitter divorce. His two children were essentially estranged from him. However, at the time of the allegations, they both moved in with R.K. for weekends. The children were upset about R.K. having moved on with his life; being engaged and purchasing a new house with his fiancé. One night after 11:00 p.m. the children confronted R.K. while he was sleeping his bedroom, stating that they are concerned there is no pre-nuptial agreement, and that he is putting their inheritance at risk for this new relationship with a person they did not know well. R.K. who was woken from a deep sleep was upset and told them to leave his room. They would not. R.K. got up and pushed them out of his bedroom while both children started a physical altercation with R.K. Police were called and R.K. was charged with multiple offences. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was hired as the defence lawyer. When all of the statements were obtained, Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with defence disclosure, including the history of the family court proceedings, case law on the right to repel persons who are acting aggressive in your own home, and other source documents including messages that underscore a financial motivation to fabricate allegations and create a situation for R.K. to have lost his new relationship. In addition, the statements of the two children were highly problematic and not plausible. As a result, all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Rex v. A.B. (2022)

Charge of Assault emanating from a road rage incident withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. A.B. got into an unfortunate argument with a driver that he perceived cut him off. The cars came to a stop and A.B. went to the other car and allegedly punched the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the Crown and sought for his client to take anger management counselling and undertake volunteering at Habitat for Humanity in order for the charge to be withdrawn. After discussions with the Crown, the proposal was agreed to and after completion of the therapy and volunteer hours the charge of Assault was formally withdrawn.

Rex v. D.N. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn, Toronto. D.N. was enjoying a bbq in his backyard with friends, when his former girlfriend and another lady walked into his backyard and started yelling at D.N. It appeared that the two complainants were drunk. D.N. was pushed and slapped. D.N. pushed the complainants away from him and then pushed them to the front of the house to leave. D.N. called police. Unbelievably when the police eventually interviewed everyone, the police charged D.N. with two counts of assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the Crown a very lengthy letter explaining that D.N. had the lawful right to repel an assault and to forcibly remove trespassers from his property so long as the force was reasonable. Joseph Neuberger also obtained video surveillance from the house showing the actual altercation. This was disclosed to the Crown. The charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2022)

J.L. was charged with a Domestic Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. J.L. and his wife came from China to Canada and had a daughter together in Canada. Being far from family members and friends, they argued a lot. On the night of arrest, they started arguing with each other which escalated into a physical altercation. The complainant, the wife of J.L., called 911 and police arrived. The complainant provided a statement to police and J.L. was arrested for body checking the complainant multiple times. J.L. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners, Newmarket Criminal Lawyers, as his criminal defence lawyer. Mariya drafted the client’s chronology and a detailed memo to the Crown. The client provided video footage of the complainant that put the complainant’s credibility at issue. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented defence disclosure including the memo and video. The Crown Attorney agreed to the J.L. completing counseling, and then entered into a common law peace bond. The domestic assault charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. X.L. (2022)

X.L. was charged with Assault and Forcible Confinement against her boyfriend, Toronto. X.L. and her boyfriend broke up. The boyfriend wanted to leave the apartment but X.L. blocked the doorway. The two began to fight and X.L. called 911. Upon arrival, police officers spoke to both X.L. and her boyfriend. Police officers decided to arrest X.L. X.L. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, as her criminal defence lawyer. X.L. was concerned about her immigration status in Canada due to her criminal charges. X.L. was in Canada on a student visa. Mariya had a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney where she was able to convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges after some counseling. X.L. completed counseling and Mariya provided a favourable counseling report to the Crown Attorney. The charges of Assault and Forcible Confinement were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.S. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Utter Threat and Mischief withdrawn prior to setting the trial date. K.S. was charged with Sexual Assault, Utter Threat and Mischief out of London, Ontario. The complainant was his girlfriend who called 911 because K.S. locked her out of his apartment. The complainant provided a statement to police at the scene where she alleged that K.S. threatened to kill her and broke a window of her car. The complainant also disclosed a historic sexual assault by K.S. K.S. had ended the relationship and it seemed the allegations were revenge. K.S. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, as his Criminal Defence lawyers. Joseph and Mariya requested disclosure and carefully analyzed it with the client. Joseph and Mariya prepared a letter for the assigned Crown Attorney that outlined the issues with the case and that showed there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. This was clearly a care of a false revenge allegation of sex assault. After multiple pre-trials and emails with the Crown Attorney, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.L. (2022)

R. L. was charged with Domestic Assault out of the Newmarket courthouse. R.L. had a marriage breakdown with his wife. The two had a child together who was an infant at the time of the allegations. On the evening of the allegations, R.L. attended his wife’s residence to pick up their child as per their agreement. However, his wife decided that she does not want R.L. to take their child. R.L. disregarded her wishes and proceeded to put a child in the car seat. The wife started to take the child out of the car seat and R.L. pushed her away by her throat to prevent her from taking the child away. The wife called police. Police arrived and shockingly charged R.L. with Assault. R.L. met with Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Newmarket Criminal Lawyers, and retained her to represent him on his charge. Mariya has put together the client’s side of the story, background information of the client and the relationship background with his wife. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor and convinced the prosecutor that the client has no anger issues, poses no threat to the wife or anyone else and that he was acting in the interest of his child only. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge. Thus, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2022)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 and utter threats to cause death and or bodily harm, withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Orangeville. S.G. has been in a high conflict divorce for several years. His son has been seeing both parents on a shared basis. Unfortunately, access has been a challenge and after and argument with S.G. about grades, his son, the complainant, alleged that S.G. had assaulted him and threatened him. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained as defence counsel. The statement of the complainant clearly read with language not of a 13-year-old. It seemed to be a coached statement. Further, Joseph Neuberger obtained CCAS records that had notes about influence and parental alienation by the mother. After detailed discussions with the Crown about the issues arising from the disclosure and the CCAS records as well as not wanting to destroy a father and son relationship, a common peace bond resolution was worked out with the opportunity for S.G. to apply to family court for access and reunification therapy. As such, the charges of assault and utter threats were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.A. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after a four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. M.A. had met the complainant at Cherry Beach and the two exchanged Instagram handles. After some time of exchanges message, the two decided to go on a date. The location picked by M.A. was a restaurant that served alcohol, and the complainant for some reason did not want to go. Eventually the two went back to M.A.’s condo and had Sisha on the balcony. As the evening progressed the two wound up on M.A.’s bedroom and the two had intimate contact. The complainant left angry and contacted police two days later. M.A. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger, Criminal Defence Lawyer Toronto, to defend M.A. After receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison obtained a series of messages exchanged between M.A. and the complainant. The Crown was going to use the messages to establish a plan that M.A. sought to execute to manipulate the complainant to not go out but to come to his home for sex. Aside from this being a male sexual aggression stereotype, the messages when put into context showed mutual flirting, and a determined intention of the complainant to arrange date at M.A.’s home to have Shisha on his balcony. Further, the complainant provided a second statement that seemed to contradict the first statement on how the sexual encounter unfolded. At trial, cross-examination lasted the better part of two days wherein the complainant was shown to have serious internal inconsistencies in her evidence and made crucial admissions including that she was telling M.A. that she was “close” and climaxed. This came out under intense cross-examination and were two piece of important information the complainant intentionally left out of both of her two police statements. This was in stark contrast to her evidence in-chief during which she stated that she was not enjoying any part of the evening, and during sexual activity was in pain and had blacked out. In cross-examination she admitted to making a false statement about a particular sex act, then eventually agreed she willingly went to M.A.’s bedroom and was kissing him passionately. As noted above, with further pressure on cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger the complainant made the two major admissions. In addition, the defence spent time with the client getting him ready to testify. At trial the Court accepted much of his evidence as being consistent and more plausible. When the Court considered all of the evidence, M.A. was found not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. X.G. (2022)

Client found not guilty of sex assault after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. X.G. was a massage therapist charged with sexually assaulting a patient. X.G. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious sexual abuse charges. The complainant texted XG that she was dissatisfied about the massage she received. X.G. attempted to placate an angry customer by apologizing. The prosecution tried to use the purported apology as an admission of having committed the offence. However, XG and the complainant spoke two different languages. They were effectively speaking at cross-purposes. Christopher Assie was able to use X.G.’s purported apology to corroborate his account of their interaction. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. In a detailed judgement the Court found X.G. not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.M. (2022)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn with a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Oshawa. The complainant was D.M.’s girlfriend. She alleged that D.M. had been harassing her for over three weeks. She had asked him to stop e-mailing her, but he would instead show up at her place of employment and wait for her to finish her shift so he could speak with her. Complainant’s parents also alleged that they had found D.M. running away from their residence at one time. Police were called and D.M. was charged with criminal harassment. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent D.M. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and as well as source information from the client. A theme developed in reviewing the statement of the complainant and her parents. Ms. Johri established that the Complainant was caught dating D.M. by her parents who they did not approve of. They had asked her stop dating D.M. but she did not stop. The two then dated in secrecy thereafter. When the Complainant’s parents caught D.M. leaving their residence, the Complainant alleged criminal harassment. Yuvika conducted a crown pre-trial where she convinced the crown to withdraw the charge as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.R. (2022)

Charges of assault x 2 and one count of assault (choking) were withdrawn before setting the matter down for trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Scarborough. The complainant and J.R. were estranged. It was alleged that J.R. got into an argument over child support with the complainant. During the argument, J.R. allegedly punched the complainant in the head and shoulder. When the complainant attended the police station, she recalled prior incidences where on one occasion, she was punched and on another, choked. The complainant also alleged that their toddler daughter witnessed these incidences. Police charged J.R. with two counts of assault and one count of assault- choking. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent JR against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and pictures of injuries on the complainant. Yuvika also requested the prior occurrence when the complainant was arrested for assault on J.R. After several discussions with the Crown and a Judicial Pre-Trial, Yuvika established that the complainant had in fact not be truthful about the allegations. The alleged injuries were inconsistent with the evidence and there were prior incidents of abuse by the complainant. It seemed there was a motive to alienate J.R. for the child of the relationship. It was negotiated that all charges would be withdrawn with the client signing a peace bond.

Regina v. S.P. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 and one count of Forcible Confinement withdrawn with a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall Toronto. The complainant was S.P.’s wife who alleged that an argument had taken place between the two during which he assaulted her. When she tried leaving the apartment, S.P. allegedly grabbed her hand and forced her inside the apartment. He then kicked her in the stomach. A witness allegedly heard the commotion and came to assist the complainant. The witness was able to take the complainant to his apartment from where he called 911. To make matters worse, S.P. inadvertently admitted to the police that he tried to stop the complainant from leaving their apartment. Police charged S.P. with two counts of assault and one count of forcible confinement. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained to represent S.P. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and found several weaknesses in the crown’s case. After several Crown and Judicial Pre-Trials, a package was prepared in S.P.’s defence which included letters from an immigration lawyer, regulatory lawyer, upfront therapy reports, and employment letter. Text messages from the complainant were also provided which proved that the complainant had malice and intended to trap S.P. in the criminal justice. Charges were withdrawn with a common law peace bond. A withdrawal was necessary in this case as S.P. is a physician who was a front-line worker throughout the pandemic and was in Canada on a work visa. S.P.’s license to practice medicine was in jeopardy and there was a considerable body of information establishing that S.P. is an excellent and caring physician.

Regina v. G.P. (2022)

Charges of Assault withdrawn with an 810-peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The complainant was a friend who attended a party hosted by the accused. The complainant got into an argument with one of the co-accused over his financial status. The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the accused and his cousins (co-accused) where he was repeatedly punched and kicked. He also alleged that one of the co-accused grabbed a knife and raised it towards him in a threatening manner. Complainant attended a police station the next morning and made a complaint. G.P. was charged with Assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent G.P. After extensive review of the disclosure, and several meetings with counsel for the co-accused, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw all charges against G.P. G.P. was at risk if the charges were not withdrawn as his citizen application was pending.

Regina v. G.S. (2022)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton. G.S. was charged with one count of Assault arising from a party with his friends. After a period of drinking an altercation between a number of people. The complainant identified a number of individuals who allegedly assaulted him including G.S. G.S. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, as defence counsel. Mariya requested and received voluminous disclosure including the identification evidence. After careful review of all of the witness evidence, Mariya charted out a series of material inconsistencies which significantly undermined the evidence of the complainant that G.S. was a participant in the altercation. Mariya provided the Crown with an RPC memo outlining the deficiencies in the prosecution case. At the pre-trial with the Crown Attorney Mariya was able to establish serious problems with the case and that it was not in the public interest to prosecute G.S. G.S. entered into a peace bond and the charge of assault was withdraw.

Regina v. A.H. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 6, Sexual Interference x 5, Assault x 4, Threaten Death, Invitation to Sexual Touch all withdrawn after the completion of a five-day preliminary hearing, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.H. was charged with various domestic offences including sex assault against his former wife, and stepdaughters and several assault and sexual interference charges as against his biological daughter who he had with the complainant. A.H. is a prominent dentist, and he began a relationship with a patient after she ceased being a patient of his office. The two soon had a religious marriage and had a baby daughter. The two blended their families but after about a year and half the relationship started to sour over financial issues. While returning from a trip to Iran, A.H. ended the relationship with the complainant due to his perceived harm by the complainant as to her manipulation about money and theft of funds. The couple had arguments over WhatsApp for a few days and then when A.H. told the complainant to move to her own residence and that he would not pay for her residence, the complainant attended the police station and multiple offences were alleged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After obtaining the various statements and messages provided by the complainant to the Crown, Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a preliminary hearing where the Crown agreed to call all of the complainants to testify save for the youngest child. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison, legal researcher with the firm, developed a detailed and strong 276/278 Application to have the Court allow into evidence hundreds of messages not disclosed by the complainant, as well as pictures, cards and other documents that the defence sought to undermine the evidence of the complainants. The Application was successful. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the former wife and her two daughters extensively. The testimony became hostile, and it became evident due to the design of the cross-examination that all three complainants colluded. At the end of cross-examination, an adjournment was sought by the Crown and then after lengthy review of the transcripts of the preliminary hearing the Crown withdrew all of the domestic abuse charges, sexual interference and sexual assault charges. It was a complete vindication for A.H.

Regina v. R.K. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 4, withdrawn on the first appearance. R.K. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal defence lawyer. The charges stem from alleged assaults dating back to 2010. The two parties separated and had a long divorce process. About 12 years later, which there were other issues surrounding the children, the complainant decided to go to police and alleged historical abuse allegations. Joseph Neuberger prepared a package of materials for the Crown to assess, including a fairly lengthy family court trial decision, as well as other source material showing not only motive to fabricate about animus. Discussions ensued between defence and the Crown, and it was decided that all charges be withdrawn for no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. C.S. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial in the Newmarket Court. C.S. and his wife were having ongoing arguments. On a particular evening an argument broke out over C.S. preparing dinner. During the argument, the hot dinner was thrown at C.S. and caused burns to his face. He called 911. When police arrived both C.S. and the complainant were interviewed. It was determined that C.S. was the aggressor and was charges with domestic abuse charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the injuries reviewed by a medical expert and sent the report along with the treatment notes of C.S.’s treating physician to the Crown. In addition, a memo was drafted by Joseph Neuberger and sent to the Crown about how gender bias was palpable given the assessment of the police who arrived on scene and determined that C.S. was the aggressor. As a result of the defence work, the Crown withdrew the charges.

Regina v. B.M. (2022)

B.M. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault out of Old City Hall courthouse, Toronto. B.M. and his girlfriend met each out online and both were students at the University of Toronto. After the two started living together, regular arguments began. B.M. decided to move out but didn’t tell his girlfriend. Once she found out, B.M. and his girlfriend began fighting. B.M. called 911 and police arrived. Police officers took statements from both B.M. and his girlfriend and decided to arrest both for Assault. However, while at the police station, the girlfriend provided a more detailed statement and police officers decided not to proceed with the charge against her. B.M. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko to represent as his criminal defence lawyers Toronto. Joseph and Mariya obtained disclosure. They organized it and analyzed it. The statement B.M.’s girlfriend provided at the police station contained some information that could have potentially resulted in an additional charge of Sexual Assault. Furthermore, the University of Toronto investigation officers conducted an investigation and included a Sex Assault allegation in their report. Joseph and Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the Crown Attorney very careful in order to make sure additional charges were not laid. After the defence investigation and interview of a number of key defence witnesses, detailed discussions about the evidence resulted in the Crown deciding to withdraw all charges. B.M. entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. P.B.M. (2022)

P.B.M. was charged with five counts of Assault, four counts of Forcible Confinement and one count of Criminal Harassment, Toronto. The complainant was his ex-girlfriend. She alleged that P.B.M. was constantly jealous of her and on a number of occasions didn’t let her leave the house but pushed her and grabbed her. P.B.M. had no status in Canada. P.B.M. retained lawyers at Neuberger and Partners to represent him as his Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko carefully reviewed disclosure. It included text messages from the client to the complainant of jealous nature, photos of alleged injuries and the statement of the complainant. Mariya discovered some inconsistences between the alleged injuries of the complainant on the photos and the description of the injuries in the statement of the complainant. A defence medial expert was consulted by the defence. Along with other information, Mariya presented a memo on deficiencies with the Crown’s case and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges. P.B.M. entered into a peace bond and all domestic assault and harassment were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Q. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a very prestigious boys’ school. After a school event, various teachers attended a party to celebrate the end of term. At some point latter in the evening, K.Q. and another teacher were cuddling on a couch at a colleague’s home. There was some intimate touching but one particular intimate sexual touch under clothing in the chest area of the complainant became an issue. After the touch, the complainant bit K.Q. K.Q. apologized the next day and apologized in text. The complainant went to police and K.Q. was charged with Sex Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko and Diana Davison. The history of the complainant and K.Q. was extremely relevant as to how and why K.Q. interacted with K.Q. just prior to and during the impugned evening. After careful review of all the prosecution evidence, and the history provided by the client, there was a dynamic of over two years with intimate physical touching and an emotional bond wherein there were mixed signals that impacted how K.Q. thought about his relationship with the complainant. Such acts included hand holding in public, dancing, nights at each other’s home, and other relevant intimate contact. The complainant maintained it was a purely platonic relationship. For trial, careful, and strategic attention was given to advancing the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent to defend the sexual assault allegation. Considerable time was spent on the case law, crafting the cross-examination of the complainant, and preparing K.Q. for testimony. A motion was brought prior to trial under section 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code to advance evidence of prior sexual history. The defence motion under section 276 and 278 was successful. At trial cross-examination was able to bring out a significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant with her in-court testimony, as well as various critical factors prior to the date of the alleged offence that impacted the state of mind of K.Q. The defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent is a very complex defence and accordingly written submissions were provided by the defence to assist the court to make critical determinations of fact and law. Extensive time was spent on drafting the closing submissions. As a result, K.Q. was found not guilty of the offence of Sexual Assault.

Regina v. J.G. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after trial in the Superior Court, Barrie. J.G. was charged with a historical sexual assault of his cousin. The allegation was that sometime between 2007 and 2009, J.G. drove his younger female cousin home after she was too drunk to walk home and during the drive stopped and committed a sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Diana Davison and Grace Condello. The client flatly denied the allegation. The evidence of the complainant consisted of two statements provided in 2020 and essentially rested upon repressed memories that were recovered 11 years later during a stressful argument with her husband over separation. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the complainant outlining key inconsistencies between her two statements, and then her in-court testimony at trial. In addition, cross-examination focused on the storyline of the complainant, her drinking habits in 2007 to 2009, including the night in question, and the evidence of her “repressed” memories. Of particular interest was cross-examination that established her first statement noted that she had experienced blackouts and had a patchy memory. Her second statement, expanded considerably on additional details that included a memory of a lack of memory. The client and his wife were prepared as defence witnesses. They testified about the family dynamic at the time of the allegations, how close the family was and how the complainant remained a close cousin and friend through 2007 to 2019 when the allegation was made. As this was a judge alone trial, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written submissions detailing the frailties of the evidence and why J.G. ought to be acquitted. The judgement of the court adopted the defence submissions that “the reliability of the complainant’s memory is integral to the Crown’s case. When her memory takes on the appearance of a chalkboard which can be erased and rewritten at will, her evidence loses all reliability.” The judgement is important with respect to assessing recovered memories, and the inherent frailties. In particular, the Court noted that recovered memories should be viewed with suspicion. In our opinion, courts must resist new formulations of “recovered memory syndrome” and recognize the frailty of junk science about memory.

Applications under section 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code of Canada to admit records and prior sexual history

People who find themselves charged with sexual assault often enter the process with myths about how their trial will be conducted.  There are not only myths about what evidence will establish their innocence but also about how evidence can or cannot be used in court.

Due to an increased protection for the privacy rights of complainants, most sexual assault trials require pre-trial applications. Not only to establish what evidence an accused can use in court but also to determine whether or not certain areas of questioning will be permitted in cross-examination.

There is an art to winning these pre-trial applications. Arguments must be articulated carefully and precisely to explain the probative value versus the prejudicial effect. A failure to handle these applications can compromise the integrity and fairness of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada has commented that sexual history evidence will rarely be admissible but at Neuberger & Partners we have been successful in every application brought since the new legislation was passed.  From R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38 at para 56:

In the case of Regina v. Y.Z. we successfully argued the relevance of the complainant’s suspicions about the client cheating on her and their use of a dating app. Additionally, we were able to prove that the couple’s history of birth control methods was relevant to undermine the alleged aggravating factor of not using a condom. After winning the application the charges were withdrawn without the need for a trial.

In the case of Regina v. K.Y., hundreds of pages of WhatsApp messages were reviewed and all 58 segments of the chat history the defence sought to access were deemed to be admissible at trial. The entire nature of the relationship was in question and this was a case with 10 charges, including three alleged sexual assaults spanning the course of the one year relationship. With access to these messages we were able to obtain acquittals on all of the assault and sexual assault charges.

In the case of Regina v. A.H., we were able to show that WhatsApp messages over the course of the relationship were relevant to the true dynamic of the relationship. After winning the pre-trial application the client was able to prove that the complainant was lying about abuse and sexual assaults to the point that she was begging the client not to self-isolate during the pandemic and wanted them and her children to all “catch Covid together.” All 18 charges were withdrawn after winning the application and conducting a preliminary hearing.

In the case of Regina v. K.Q., the complicated defence of “honest but mistaken belief in consent” was the only defence being advanced. This is a very difficult defence  to articulate properly as there is agreement and clear evidence that the complainant did not consent to the touching. The history of the couple’s previous activity was essential to show why the accused had a reasonable belief that she would consent and that he was not being reckless or wilfully blind as to her consent. Without the evidence deemed admissible after the application the client would not have been able to prove he had taken reasonable steps.

In the case of Regina v. A.M. the complainant unsuccessfully argued that none of their numerous text messages were relevant or probative because she could explain them all in a way that did not impeach her statement to police. We were successful in showing that the messages were highly relevant and that the complainant’s credibility on all the issues related to the dynamic of their relationship was a serious issue to be determined in trial.

In the trial of Regina v. N.B., the Crown and complainant’s lawyer both conceded that our application should be granted as the messages were highly probative for the reasons that we articulated. After being confronted with her messaging history with our client the complainant tried to claim she didn’t write the messages herself and the judge did not believe her. The relevance of the messages had to be detailed properly to show that we were not arguing “advance consent.”

In the case of Regina v. D.S., our client faced 6 charges including sexual assault causing bodily harm, domestic assault, threatening, criminal harassment, sexual assault with a weapon (to wit, a dildo). After winning our application to admit numerous emails, text messages and videos the charges were withdrawn as it was clear none of the accusations had a prospect of conviction. The client was spared a trial and was able to move on with his life.

Despite the Supreme Court’s suggestion that sexual history evidence will rarely be admissible, Neuberger & Partners, Criminal Defence Lawyers Toronto,  has been successful in every pre-trial evidentiary application brought since the new, strict legislation was enacted. These applications need to be focused and heavily supported with the most recent case law to ensure our clients receive a fair trial. Although onerous, when done properly a successful application can often result in the Crown reconsidering their prospect of conviction.

It is vital for people faced with sex assault charges, that these application be drafted in a very detailed fashion grounded in the evidence supported by the client’s version of events.  These are NOT simple applications and because of the new legislation, defending sexual assualt charge is a complex nuanced matter.

Regina v. J.B.I. (2022)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. J.B.I. was charged with Assault out of North York courthouse. He and his wife had recently arrived from China and were going through some marital issues. On one of the evenings, J.B.-I. and his wife got into an argument. The wife was having a difficulty adjusting to a new life in Canada and was suffering from depression and anxiety. The argument escalated into a physical fight and the wife alleged that J.B.I. pushed her. J.B.-I. was arrested and released from police station. J.B.-I. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya went through the disclosure including the CAHM report on the complainant. Mariya was contacted by a counsel who was hired by the complaint. Mariya worked with the complainant’s counsel and submitted documents for the Crown Attorney to review. After numerous discussions with the Crown Attorney, the charge of Domestic Assault against the client was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Y. (2022)


Client found not guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Domestic Assault, and three counts of Threaten Death, after a seven-day trial by Zoom in the Superior Court, Newmarket. K.Y. had a religious marriage with the complainant. They were not civilly married. Over the course of the first year of their relationship, arguments emerged about how K.Y. was not willing to have a civil marriage to create a legal marriage in Ontario. In addition, numerous arguments occurred regarding financial expectations of the complainant. After about 16 months of the relationship, the complainant attended the hospital after an extensive verbal argument about the demise of their relationship. The complainant attended the hospital due to falling on the ice but when there had disclosed to a nurse that she was subjected to abuse over the entire relationship with K.Y, and ultimately K.Y. was charged with multiple offences related to domestic abuse including sex assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend K.Y. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure and then had K.Y. retain a family lawyer to work with Joseph. The importance of the correct family lawyer in the divorce case was vital to uncovering the reason for fabrication. There were three separate statements provided by the complainant and a few messages that were disclosed to the defence. After careful analysis of the statements there were a number of important inconsistencies but more importantly a general lack of coherence. Joseph Neuberger worked with the family lawyer on the Reply and the discoveries (in the family law proceedings) that provided a robust source of evidence to cross-examine the complainant on to undermine her credibility. In particular, the complainant had filed several documents in the family court proceedings to attempt to convince the family court that there was a legal marriage in order to seek support payments, division of the assets of K.Y. and other financial remedies. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the documents with the family lawyer, and the documents appeared to be fraudulent. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, filed through a 276/278 motion extensive material including WhatsApp messages spanning the entire relationship, family court documents and other evidence to support the defence. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on the documents and was able to establish that the complainant had falsified a marriage licence, marriage certificate, a religious document promising payment from K.Y. of $150,000.00, all of which the Court concluded that the complainant had knowingly participated in providing false documents to establish a legal marriage to allow her to claim significant amounts of money from K.Y. Further, during cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, there were material inconsistencies established on each charge, not only between the statements and in-court testimony, but also in relation to the preliminary hearing. There were also recordings made by the complainant of several arguments during which threats were made by K.Y. Yet when reviewed carefully, did not amount to threats to cause death. Further, the defence spent considerable time with K.Y. preparing him to testify, and at trial, K.Y. testified and his evidence was accepted by the court. It was very important for K.Y. to testify and tell the truth. At the end of the trial, Joseph Neuberger, drafted a 75-page written closing argument to assist the court with properly applying evidence to avoid myth-based reasoning. Ultimately, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine who was telling the truth at trial, but further found that the complainant’s credibility was severely damaged by her involvement in falsifying legal documents. K.Y. was found not guilty of all charges of Sexual Assault, Assault and Threatening.

This case was a rare case where the complainant had gone to the extent of creating legal marriage documents that with careful review by Joseph Neuberger were proved to be false. It was clear in this case that the complainant was willing to fabricate evidence to suit her desire for financial gain. This significantly undermined her credibility and any ability of the court to rely upon her evidence.

Regina v. W.C. (2022)

Charges of Assault, and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court, Scarborough. W.C. and his wife had a series of escalating arguments about their marriage. During one argument, W.C. was cooking and had a knife in his hand. The complainant called police and alleged that W.C. had grabbed her and threatened her with the knife while pointing it at her. This resulted in charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang, combined the team at Neuberger & Partners who assisted W.C. with his defence. After detailed review of the disclosure and numerous pre-trials, the Crown was persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. W.C. was making dinner during the argument in question and had the knife in his hand as part of his preparation of dinner. Further, based upon the manner of the alleged physical assault as described by the complainant in her statement to police, the defence was able to establish the description was frankly implausible. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw all domestic abuse charges.

Regina v. A.M. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.M. was charged with sexual assault during a message of his neighbour. A.M. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Brampton Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. A.M. was alleged to have given his neighbour a massage. During the massage, the complainant alleged that A.M. had massaged her breasts and had massaged/touched her clitoris and buttocks without consent thus giving rise to a charge of Sexual/Sex Assault. A.M.’s version of events was that after a brief conversation with the complainant regarding her back pain and other ailments outside of their homes, he offered to provide her with Turmeric – which he knew to be help with physical ailments. He offered to give her some if she did not have any. She accepted his offer and went into his home to retrieve it. While discussing various topics in the home, he pointed out a tube of topical anesthetic cream that had been prescribed to him by a doctor to help with his own muscle pain. He offered her some and she accepted. He applied the cream to her back. He denied touching any other body part and flatty denied Sexual Assault. The complainant told the police that A.M. had then tried to ‘bribe her’ by offering her some jewellery after he assaulted her. The incident occurred about a week before Christmas. The complainant had distorted the interaction, characterized innocuous events as nefarious, and had fabricated the sexual assault. Mr. Assie was able to demonstrate through careful cross-examination that the complainant’s account made no sense and did not withstand scrutiny. What she characterized as an attempted ‘bribe’ was in fact the reasonable actions of a small business owner who was simply trying to make a sale during the lucrative Christmas season by presenting her the costume jewelry he sold in the hopes of turning her into a customer. Mr. Assie also spent a significant amount of time preparing A.M. to testify in his own defence. A.M. was an immigrant and was not entirely fluent in English. He was an older gentleman who had never been in trouble with the law before and was very nervous to testify. The only way to help A.M. from feeling overly nervous at trial was to spend several days conducting mock examinations-in-chief and mock cross-examinations of the facts and basis of the Sex Assault charge. All the work preparing A.M. for trial paid off as the judge ultimately ruled that she accepted his version of events and found him not guilty of sexual assault.

*This is an important example of how it is vital to helping a client prepare for giving evidence in court. This type of preparation of the defence evidence resulted in the client being believed by the trial judge on the sex assault charge. At Neuberger & Partner, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, Joseph Neuberger, over three decades of assisting clients has developed a defined process for defences on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Sexual Exploitation, Domestic Assault and Assault. All lawyers in Neuberger & Partners follow the same detailed approach to defending and helping clients succeed in their cases.

Regina v. N.C. (2022)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial, Kingston. N.C. was charged with one count of sexual assault out of Kingston courthouse. N.C. invited some friends over to his house. After some drinking and watching movies, N.C. ended up having a sexual intercourse with one of the attending friends. Later that night, the friend made a complaint that sexual intercourse was not consensual, and that N.C. had forced himself on her. N.C. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to represent him the Sex Assault charge. Mariya spoke to the client and carefully reviewed two statements of the complainant, two witness statements and other evidence provided to the defence. Defence interviews were conducted to determine what was observed of the two parties that night. Mariya conducted several pre-trials with the Crown and provided a memo on material discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and witnesses as well as internal inconsistencies. The Crown Attorney agreed that she had a weak case for a reasonable prospect of conviction. N.C entered into a peace bond and the charge of Sexual Assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Threat Death, Forcible Confinement and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario of Justice Kitchener. A.S. and the complainant have been married for two years. Unfortunately due to stresses A.S. and the complainant argued frequently. A.S. sought a divorce and the argument escalated and continued for several days. A.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger, Toronto Criminal Lawyer, was retained to defend the domestic abuse allegations. After careful review of the evidence and sending the client for intense therapy related to anger and conflict management, Joseph Neuberger, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of all domestic assault related charges for a peace bond.

Regina v. A.A. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client was on a dating app and planned to meet someone. The client and the person had been exchanging messages and the subject of money came up. The conversation led to a discussion of sexual services for money but was a bit vague. The client attended and the complainant seemed young, and he left. However, the complainant called police and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend A.A. After receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger charted out the statements of the complainant which demonstrated a number of significant inconsistencies. In addition, disclosure was requested for forensic testing of the bedding as the complainant had alleged sexual acts that would have left DNA. The bedding was seized by police. The testing came back negative for any DNA or biological evidence to support the complainant’s version of events. Further, Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo setting out the deficiencies with the Crown’s case including disclosing several messages and the dating site profile of the complainant noting an age over 20. After several judicial pre-trials, it was agreed that the client would sign a common law peace bond and the Sexual Assault charge, and the Sexual Interference charge were withdrawn.

R. v. Z.L. (2022)

Z.L. was charged with Domestic Assault against his wife. ZL retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend himself against these charges. Mr. Assie suggested that ZL do some up-front counselling with a well-respected therapist. ZL agreed and completed the counselling. Mr. Assie analyzed the case and documented the discrepancies between the complainant’s allegations and the observations made by the police. He waited until the counselling was completed and had a favorable report by the therapist before engaging with the prosecutor. Armed with a therapist report and the ability to point out the inconsistencies in the evidence, Mr. Assie was able to convince the prosecutor that it was not in the public interest in prosecuting the matter. ZL agreed to enter into a peace bond without admitting any criminal or civil liability and his criminal charges were withdrawn.

Regina. v. A.F. (2022)

The client was charged with Domestic Assault out of the Scarborough courthouse. She and her boyfriend had a flight during which her boyfriend made some video recordings. The boyfriend called 911 and advised that he was being pushed, pulled and restrained by A.F. Police attended and charged A.F. Originally the Crown Attorney sought a conviction and jail. A.F. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. After receiving disclosure, there were a number of issues related to the veracity of the complainant’s evidence. A.F. had sustained some injury. Ms. Protsenko arranged for some counseling as the couple clearly had issues dealing with stressful events in their relationship. Once completed, Ms. Protsenko conducted a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, provided the counseling report and after discussions about the issues with evidence of the complainant, the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

R. v. W.P. (2022)

WP was charged with sexual assault against his former long-term girlfriend. WP and the complainant dated for five years. WP tried to break off the relationship several times, though he still cared for her deeply. After the final breakup, the complainant left WP a concerning voicemail. WP was so troubled by the message that he went to her home to check on her wellbeing. She let him into her home and he proceeded to comfort her. One thing led to another and WP succumbed to temptation and they had sex. WP immediately realized that he had made a mistake. The next day they talked again and he apologized for giving her mixed messages. He reiterated that he still cared for her but that they just could not be in a relationship together. She pleaded with him to get back together, but he stood his ground. Two weeks later she went to the police and alleged that WP came to her house and anally raped her while her son was outside the bedroom door.

WP retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious charges. WP had all their text messages from the last few years. The first task was for Mr. Assie was argue a 276?278 Application to be permitted to introduce the text messages to undermine the allegations of the complainant. This motion was complex and Diana Davison assisted with the drafting of the Application. After careful and detailed argument, the Application was granted. The text messages were devastating to the complainant’s credibility. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. The judge had no difficulty acquitting WP and stated in his judgment, “That having been said, the very real possibility – bordering on a probability – does exist that once [the complainant] realized that WP had used her that day, she decided to leverage the Criminal Justice System to ‘punish’ him for what he had done. That interpretation is supported by the manner in which [the complainant] responded to simple questions put to her that ought to have yielded simple and forthright answers. Answers – when they finally did arrive – took the form of protracted responses that consistently reflected the hurt and anger that [the complainant] had been experiencing right up to and including the time of her cross-examination.”

Regina v. R.M. (2021)

Charges of Robbery with Violence and Assault were withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West, North York, by way of a common law peace bond. RM went to a massage spa with few of his friends where they met the complainant who was a stranger. It was alleged that an argument ensued after RM and the co-accused learned that the complainant owned trucks. According to the complainant, RM and the co-accused were jealous over his status of being a truck owner. The Complainant further alleged RM and the co-accused followed him to the parking lot when he tried to leave the establishment. The argument allegedly escalated in the parking lot at which time, the complainant took out his cell phone to call 911. The Complainant further alleged that RM and the co-accused took the cell phone away from the Complainant and proceeded to punch and kick him several times. RM and the co-accused were charged with robbery with violence and assault against the Complainant. Yuvika Johri and Joseph A. Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained to represent RM against the charges. An intensive review of the disclosure was conducted with breaking down frame by fame video footage and the statements. The evidence seemed quite absurd. As a result, Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to undertake an investigation which revealed considerable helpful defence evidence. An interview of the manager of the spa, confirmed that RM did not participate any altercation. Instead, it was the complainant who tried to engage RM while under the influence of alcohol. Based on the results of the investigation, the defence was able to convince the crown to withdraw all charges against RM.

Regina v. A.D (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault were withdrawn by way of a section 810 peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. AD and the Complainant were in a relationship for over three years. They were engaged to be married and were living with each other. The Complainant alleged that AD started suspecting that the Complainant was cheating on him. She also alleged that AD would follow her on numerous occasions due to which she broke their engagement and asked him to move out. On one occasion, the Complainant alleged that AD followed her into a club where he punched her several times on her face. To make matters complicated, the Complainant’s son called AD to make death threats against him. AD met the police to report the Complainant’s son, however, got arrested himself for Assault on the Complainant. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent AD against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure which included several pictures of injuries on the Complainant’s face. At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika established that the Complainant was in fact cheating on AD while they were weeks away from getting married. She also showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw the charges against AD. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against AD.

Regina v. N.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial, Halton Region. Mr. N.M. had separated from his wife and divorce proceedings were filed. Shortly after the filings, Mr. N.M. was charged with Domestic Assault of his former wife, and assault of his son. There was a serious issue of parental alienation involved. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After obtaining and reviewing the statements of the two complainants, Joseph Neuberger disclosed the divorce proceeding documents to the Crown and conducted an extensive pre-trial. It was evident that the criminal allegations were being used as leverage in the family court proceedings for sole custody and an unequal division of assets. Further, Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of a report done by a therapist regarding an assessment with the children including the son who was the complainant. That was also provided to the Crown along with additional defence disclosure. As a result of the defence disclosure, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. E.C. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn, Newmarket. Mr. E.C. was living with his girlfriend. After an evening of drinking the two got into an argument because E.C. did not want to get married. The incident became physical and police were called. E.C. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the client photographed as he sustained injuries from the altercation. Further, after receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger brought a civil motion to have the complainant removed from E.C.’s home. The complainant had no interest or right to the property and the bail for some reason excluded E.C. from his home. Joseph Neuberger did not act on the bail hearing. The motion was successful and the complainant was removed. Joseph Neuberger then had the bail amended. During the course of the proceedings the complainant made numerous outrageous allegations. After discussions with the Crown Attorney, it was agreed that E.C. would sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. As a result, the charge of assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.Z. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault withdrawn on the eve of trial, Newmarket. Y.Z. was in a on and off relationship with the complainant. The couple broke up in 2018 when the complainant at that time was charged with assault related to Y.Z. The couple reconciled. During a five day period the complainant was staying at the home of Y.Z. and on the last day an argument and physical altercation arose. The complainant reported to York Regional Police and Y.Z. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to represent Y.Z. Diana Davison was brought on the file to assist. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and carefully analyzed the two statements of the complainant noting oddities about the evidence. Joseph Neuberger brought a 276/278 motion to permit cross-examination of the complainant on prior sexual history evidence and text messages exchanged relevant to evidence given by the complainant. These applications are complex and need to be drafted carefully with supporting case law. The Application was drafted to set out not only the defence but the factum mapped out the issues with the complainant’s evidence. The Application was opposed by the Crown but Joseph Neuberger was successful and given full ability to cross-examine the complainant on all areas sought. After the successful application Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the draft outline of his cross of the complainant and a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction. After some discussions the Crown withdrew the Sexual Assault and Assault charge. * It is important to note that there were subtle inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence that required creative drafting of the cross and weaving together evidence the demonstrated some falsities of the complainant’s evidence. The preparation of the Application and Cross required considerable time but proved to establish the client was innocent.

R. v. L.S.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Brampton. It was alleged that LSM along with two other co-accused(s) arrived outside the Complainant’s residence and started an argument. The argument was allegedly over money the Complainant owed LSM and the co-accused(s). The argument escalated and Complainant alleged that he was punched several times and as a result, dislocated his shoulder. A friend of the Complainant also alleged that he tried to intervene in the altercation and was hit with a wooden object kept on the floor by LSM. LSM was charged with Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm. Several pictures of the injuries and medical reports of the Complainant were provided in the disclosure. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent LSM against the charges. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and conducted several meetings with Counsels for the co-accused(s). At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw all charges against LSM. A withdrawal was necessary in this case as LSM was an international student from India and a conviction would impact his immigration status. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against LSM.

R. v. Y.L. (2021)

Charge of Assault was withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 2201 Finch Avenue. The Complainant alleged that YL assaulted him over a disagreement involving their five-month-old corgi puppy. The argument allegedly escalated when YL scratched the Complainant’s hand when she tried to take the puppy out of his hand. Due to loud noises, the neighbours called 911 and police charged YL with Assault on arrival. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent Y.L against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and worked with the Complainant’s Counsel to show that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction in this case. Crown agreed with defence’s position and as a result, assault charges were withdrawn against YL.

R. v. M.F. (2021)

Charge of Criminal Harassment, and Voyeurism withdrawn prior to trial. M.F. had been charged with allegedly sending inappropriate messages and videos obtained of the complainant over a period of several month. The contact was anonymous but due to tech search by police the client was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After careful review of the evidence and extensive discussions with the Crown, and some remedial steps taken by the client, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. R.G. (2021)

R. G. was charged with a domestic assault for an allegation that he assaulted his wife while they argued on the driveway of their home in Milton. Client maintained that wife was the aggressor and argument was over a sexual escapade gone wrong. Mr. John Navarrete obtained the text messages between the wife and the husband prior to the incident and provided them to the Crown Attorney’s office demonstrating that the client was the victim in this matter. Charges against the client were withdrawn and he entered into a common law peace bond.

R. v. H.S. (2021)

H.S. was in Canada on a student visa from India. H.S. and other fellow students became involved in a large fight. Mr. John Navarrete was retained. Mr. Navarrete worked with counsel for the other accused and conducted various Judicial Pretrials and Crown Pretrials in the courthouse in Barrie. After reviewing the disclosure, Mr. Navarrete was able to show that the evidence against H.S. showed that it would be difficult for the Crown to prove that H.S. actively participated in any fight or that he was a party to any offence. As a result, the charges against H.S. were withdrawn and he entered into a peace bond.

R. v. M.A. (2021)

M.A. was charged with a sexual assault against an alleged client of M.A. The accused was a real estate agent and any criminal conviction would result in M.A. losing his professional license. M.A. retained Mr. John Navarrete for his charges out of Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Crown, with the help of the client’s text messages, that any sexual activity was consensual. The charges against M.A. were ultimately stayed by the Crown.

R. v. D.R. (2021)

The accused was going through a volatile divorce with his wife involving child custody issues, spousal support and division of property. In that context, DR was charged with various accounts of assault over the course of his marriage. Given DR’s occupation in any conviction would be catastrophic for him. DR retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete reviewed all of the materials in the family law proceedings and realized numerous crucial major inconsistencies. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pretrial with the Crown Attorney’s Office in Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete then put together a package of materials for the Crown’s review including various documents and affidavits. The charges against DR were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. N.S. (2021)

Like many individuals, NS did not get along with his father-in-law. And during the pandemic, his father-in-law moved into his residence with his family. This new domestic situation led to various verbal arguments. One incident led to NS being charged with assault. The accused retained Mr. John Navarrete to assist him with his charges out of Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and had the client perform anger management, and volunteering. Despite the strong Crown case, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown that NS was not an individual that was a danger to society and that a prosecution in this case was not in the public interest. Charges against NS were withdrawn, and NS entered into a peace bond.

R. v. K.S. (2021)

The accused was on a student visa from India. Unfortunately, K.S. became involved in a large fight with numerous other students. K.S. future in Canada was in jeopardy. K.S. retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted various Judicial Pretrials and Crown Pretrials in Barrie. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Crown’s office in Barrie that the evidence seemed to suggest that K.S. was defending himself on their own witness statements. In the end, K.S. entered into a peace bond and his criminal charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. S.Z. (2021)

The female accused was charged with domestic assault out of Old City Hall. She retained Mr. John Navarrete. Upon reviewing the disclosure, it became clear to Mr. Navarrete that his client was not the aggressor. Mr. Navarrete conducted a meeting with the Crown’s Office and the charges against SZ were withdrawn for no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. M.F. (2021)

MF was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, threats and fail to comply. The allegations involved his common law partner. M.F. retained defence counsel John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke with the accused and discovered that the allegations arose from an intimate encounter involving his common law partner and BDSM sex. Mr. Navarrete worked with counsel for the complainant and had several meetings with the Crown’s office in North York and the charges were ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. B.M. (2021)

The accused and his ex-wife got into an argument over their relationship and the children. The wife alleged that over a year ago, the accused had assaulted her on Canda’s Day. She did not report it for over a year. Mr. Navarrete was retained by BM and reviewed the family law documents. Mr. Navarrete subsequently provided to the Crown at Old City Hall various family law documents and client documents, on a without prejudice basis, in order for the Crown to assess their case. BM entered into a peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. YZ (2021)

YZ was charged with Mischief Under $5,000 arising from an alleged argument with his girlfriend. The Crown alleged that YZ had damaged his girlfriend’s phone in a fit of rage and jealousy. YZ retained John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete asked YZ to complete private anger management counseling and to ensure the broke cell phone was repaired or replaced. Mr. Navarrete also obtained numerous character reference letters and provided them and the counseling report to the Crown in Newmarket. The charges against YZ were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. A.S.(2021)

AS was an older gentleman who is alleged to have gotten into an argument with his girlfriend. AS denied any wrongdoing and advised Mr. Navarrete, his counsel, that his girlfriend suffered from some mental health issues. It was these mental health issues that ended their relationship. AS completed anger management counseling, alcohol counseling and Mr. Navarrete provided the completion certificates and reports to the Crown at Old City Hall. In addition, Mr. Navarrete provided to the Crown numerous screen shots and messages that were left on AS’s home phone answering machine and cell phone which demonstrated harassing behaviour on the part of the complainant. Charges against AS were withdrawn and he entered into a common law peace bond.

R. v. M.O. (2021)

MO is a successful owner of various restaurants in Scarborough. He was charged with sexual assault after one of his employees alleged that she was sexually harassed and sexually fondled by MO. The accused retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete obtained the various statements that the complainant had filed with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Ministry of Labour. At trial, Mr. Navarrete during cross examination was able to demonstrate how the complainant’s story had significantly changed on key issues including areas of her body that she now alleged had been touched by MO but that she had never before reported to police or in any other statement. The Crown, witnessing the cross examination, invited the trial judge to dismiss the charge against MO on the first day of trial. Charges against MO were dismissed.

R. v. F.D. (2021)

FD was charged with domestic assault involving his girl friend. FD had met his girlfriend while working at her restaurant. After reviewing disclosure, Mr. John Navarrete, defence counsel retained on the matter, worked with her independent counsel and with the Crown to ensure that FD completed PARS counseling. FD signed a peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.

R. v. J.E. (2021)

JE is a successful Youtuber. He was charged with assault and assault with weapon against his girlfriend who also wanted to be a successful Youtuber. After reviewing disclosure, specifically the statement of the complainant, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pretrial with the Crown Attorney’s Office at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown that the assault charge was self-defence and that the assault with a weapon, the throwing of a cell phone, was a reflex motion that never made contact with the complainant. Prior to the trial being conducted, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of peace bond and the charges against JE were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.H. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton. J.H. resided with his girlfriend the complainant. Unfortunately the relationship was fraught with arguments. On one occasion when the complainant was very unstable, J.H. attempted to calm the complainant and prevent her from harming herself. After the matter calmed down, and J.H. left the apartment, the complainant called police and alleged assault and being struck with a weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, the statement of the complainant was confusing and seemed to relate back to incidents with a prior boyfriend completely unrelated to J.H.. A copy of a psychological report was obtained by the defence. The report was subsequent to the charges being laid. The complainant admitted to wrongly accusing J.H. of assault and believes she was experiencing a flash back or other psychological moment related to a past relationship that unfortunately was abusive. The report was provided to the Crown on a confidential basis. Also, letters attesting to the client’s good character was supplied along with a short assessment as to his understanding of domestic issues including conflict management in a relationship. After several pre-trials the Crown agreed that J.H. was wrongly charged and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 6, Assault with Weapon, Assault x 5, Threatened Death/Harm x 3, Extortion, and Forcible Confinement all withdrawn on the eve of trial, Brampton. The client was in a five year affair with the complainant. The relationship was coming to an end but both parties were not in agreement about ending the relationship. The complainant disclosed the affair to her husband which created a series of events, including messages to D.S.’ wife. D.S. went to police about harassment. The next day the complainant attended police and made numerous allegations of sexual assault, assault etc. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Diana Davison of the firm was also assigned to the defence of the case. The statements of the complainant were carefully analyzed and charted out in line with the chronology of the client. Further, copious emails and messages were obtained form the client relating to the ending of the relationship along with videos, and other documentary evidence. The complainant alleged loaning D.S. over $340,000.00 over the span of the five year affair. Evidence obtained from the client showed transactions returning significant funds to the complainant. Further, the complainant and her husband commenced a civil actions for damages and for the alleged loans. Joseph Neuberger had D.S. retain civil counsel and also went on as co-counsel to the civil action. A joint strategy was employed to defend both the criminal charges and the civil action. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Affidavit of Documents of the complainant in the civil case. Her Affidavit and productions failed to disclose the amount alleged with insufficient documentary evidence, and blanked out banks statements never showing funds provided by D.S. In the criminal case, the complainant did not provide any documentary evidence of advancing funds. When comparing all the evidence and the Affidavit of Documents, it was obvious that the complainant was perpetrating a fraud on the court. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison drafted a 30 page 276/278 Application to allow cross-examination on prior sexual history evidence and records at the criminal trial. That Application laid out the defence and the messages sent by the complainant that in context completely undermined her assertions of non-consensual sex. In addition a chart was provided establishing material inconsistencies between the complainant’s first and second statement as well as the statements from her husband. The Application was successful. After winning the Application, the defence provided an RPC assessment memo to the Crown, the Affidavit of Documents and productions and put forth the position that the complainant was not telling the truth. The matter had multiple pre-trials and judicial pre-trials. The assigned Crown carefully and fairly reviewed all material supplied by Joseph Neuberger and after detailed discussions agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.L. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Theft Under withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Barrie, Ontario. It was alleged that A.L. was walking from a party while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, A,L. saw a person smoke a cigarette on the porch. A.L. wanted to borrow a cigarette but the person at the porch refused. The altercation ensured where A.L. allegedly kicked and hit the person on the porch. A neighbour called 911 and police arrived. What complicated the matter was that A.L. had a serious criminal record. A.L. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partner, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the prosecutor and then a Judicial pre-trial. Mariya convinced the prosecutor to withdraw the charges after the client completed 4 counselling sessions. Upon entering into a peace bond, all charges against A.L. were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 stayed prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.G. was at the end of his marriage with the complainant. The complainant had discovered that S.G. had already commenced a relationship with another person. S.G. was charged about a week later after the complainant discovered the new relationship. The allegations of sexual assault were historical. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The disclosure process was very problematic. Further, Joseph Neuberger referred S.G. to a family lawyer and assisted with the settlement of the family law case. During the pre-trials, the defence was able to produce evidence that the complainant had a made a revenge allegation. After the settlement of the family law case, the complainant did not want to continue with the criminal allegation. Ultimately the charges were stayed prior to trial due to a number of deficiencies with the Crown’s case.

R. v. N.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon withdrawn at Scarborough Courthouse. NM was walking with a friend near her apartment complex when the Complainant drove past them. The Complainant alleged that NM blocked the Complainant’s car by standing in front of it. She also alleged that NM sprayed the Complainant with pepper spray when she confronted her about blocking her car. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent NM against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika had an extensive discussion with the crown. Yuvika provided defence materials along with a letter from NM’s friend who witnessed the incident. Yuvika established that it was in fact the Complainant who drove towards NM to hit her with the car and when confronted about it, made false allegations about being attacked with a pepper spray. She also established that there was no pepper spray used in this incident, and that the Complainant was lying because NM shared a child with the Complainant’s boyfriend and had past issues with NM. Charges against NM were withdrawn by way of a peace bond.

R. v. J.C. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. JC and the Complainant were celebrating new years eve at JC’s residence when an argument started between the two. According to JC, the Complainant spoke ill of his sister due to which JC asked the Complainant to leave. The Complainant attempted to leave with an expensive bottle of vodka due to which the argument heated further, and JC called 911 to remove the Complainant from his residence. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant alleged that JC punched him three times on his face. JC was arrested and taken to the police station. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained by JC to represent him against the charges. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and convinced the crown to resolve this matter by way of a peace bond as the Complainant had mislead JC into having unprotected sex with him without disclosing that he was HIV positive. Yuvika reasoned that the Complainant should have been charged with aggravated assault instead. The assault charge against JC was withdrawn, and client entered a peace bond.

R. v. K.A. (2021)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The Complainant and KA used to drink alcohol daily. During one night of heavy drinking, KA and the Complainant engaged in a heated argument. The Complainant alleged that KA was suspicious that she was talking to another man, so she called 911 to end their verbal dispute. When the police arrived, she claimed that KA had assaulted her on a prior occasion. She also claimed that she had disclosed this prior incident to her sister via text, so she was sure that KA caused it. KA was charged with assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent JC against his assault charge. Yuvika reviewed the Complainant’s video statement which showed that the Complainant was heavily intoxicated and could not provide a coherent statement. During the crown pre-trial, Yuvika established that the complainant was not being truthful as she never provided screenshots of her conversation with her sister to the police. Yuvika also reasoned that the Complainant may have hurt herself due to her own intoxication and blamed KA as she was angry with him. Assault charge against KA was withdrawn, and KA entered a peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton.

Regina v. D.W. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Mischief Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Newmarket. The client was in a dispute with a business partner where significant funds were lost and D.W. was never informed of the sale of assets and the loss. The client lost him mind and pushed the complainant and smashed his car window. Joseph Neuberger was retained as criminal lawyer to defend the case. Joseph Neuberger disclosed the financial transaction details and correspondence which essentially amounted to a fraud. A negotiated resolution was worked out where the client took 10 hours of therapy for conflict management, and paid for the damage to the window. The charges were then withdrawn.

Regina v. Z.G.L. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting date for trial, Newmarket. Mr. Z.G.L. was involved in a martial dispute with his wife over a request for a separation. The client did not want to move out of the house. After the argument he went for a walk and when he returned police were at his home and arrested him for two counts of Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Once the disclosure was fully reviewed, the assault alleged was rather violent, but there were absolutely no injuries and the complainant in her statement kept referring to the separation and that she wanted him to move out of the house. After two pre-trials the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges for the client signing a ten month peace bond.

Regina v. X.L. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton, Ontario. X.L. had an argument with his common law spouse. Unfortunately, when X.L. left the residence to take a walk, the complainant called police and alleged an assault. X.L. was charged with Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the allegation. Joseph Neuberger obtained disclosure and the statement of the complainant read like a list of all the reasons why X.L. was a bad spouse save and except for being abusive or assaultive. With a proper read, the allegation was extremely weak. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the assigned Crown with a breakdown of the statement and messages sent by the complainant sent to X.L. subsequent to the charge seeking all sorts of financial compensation. After a productive pre-trial, the agreement was that the Crown would withdrawn the charge and the client would sign a peace bond. As a result, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.H.L. (2021)

Charge of Aggravated Assault withdrawn prior to jury trial, Kingston. The client was in a bar and was surrounded by a group who were intoxicated and after some words back and forth racial slurs were directed at C.H.L. and one member of the group approached C.H.L. and in reaction C.H.L. punched the complainant. Police were called and the client was charged. There was a video of the incident taken by a friend of the complainant that was shown to police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Lawyer to defend C.H.L. Joseph Neuberger conducted a preliminary hearing and cross-examined all of the members of the group including the complainant. The video in fact supported the defence position as the explanation for making the video was that the friend wanted a video record in case there was a fight. That was dealt with in cross examination as if anyone was worried about an altercation, the best action is to leave or step in to stop the altercation rather than record it. The video when played several times has no sound but demonstrates 90 seconds of the group taunting C.H.L. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, collected data of racial incidents in Kington and at the particular university supporting the fear of the client that he was going to be assaulted. A forensic psychologist was hired to assess the client which determined the client had experienced trauma from numerous racialized incidents. The defence put forth was self-defence. As the jury trial approached detailed discussions ensued and it was agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the case and as such the charge of Aggravated Assault was withdrawn. Of note is the fact that there is a legitimate argument for someone who is experiencing verbal racial assaults may in the moment, in particular if surrounded by a group, to fear for their safety and act in a manner to protect themselves that comes within the self-defence law in Canada.

Regina v. R.M. (2021)

Criminal charges of Assault causing bodily harm withdrawn. R.M. was charged with a road-rage type incident at a Tim Horton’s parking lot. It was alleged that he got into an argument with another driver. The argument culminated in a large fight involving several different people. R.M. Client hired Christopher Assie as his Criminal Lawyer Toronto. Unknown to the Crown, several videos had been posted to social media. Christopher Assie collected the videos and put together a compilation that caused the Crown to reconsider its reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown ultimately withdrew the charges when R.M. agreed to enter into a peace bond.

Regina v. S.K. (2021)

Criminal charges of Assault, Assault causing bodily harm and Assault with a weapon withdrawn. S.K. was alleged to have attended the home of the complainants with two other people. During an argument, S.K. and his co-accused were alleged to have started a physical altercation and then grabbed broken chair leg and assaulted the complainants. S.K. was in Canada on a student visa. Any conviction would have immediately lead to his inadmissibility to Canada and lead to his deportation. S.K. hired Christopher Assie. A careful review of the evidence revealed that the allegations of who started the physical altercation and who introduced a weapon during the altercation revealed that it was not cut and dry. Through discussions with the Crown, counsel was able to convince them to withdraw the charges in exchange for S.K. entering into a peace bond and completing some anger management counselling. All charges withdrawn and S.K. was permitted to remain in the country.

R v. A.P. (2021)

Charges of Utter Threats withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client was charged with Uttering Threats to cause death/ bodily Harm. One night, AP and the Complainant engaged in a heated verbal argument. The argument escalated when the Complainant proceeded to call AP’s father to report AP’s behavior. The two proceeded to struggle over the phone. The Complainant alleged that AP made threats to stab her with a knife her if she did not stop. Yuvika Johri was retained as the Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer to represent A.P. against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika convinced the Crown to not prosecute A.P. as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw the charges by way of a peace bond.

R. v. G.M. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial. The client was charged with Assault. The Complainant alleged that they had an argument over infidelity. G.M. allegedly pushed her into a door that caused her to fall and get hurt. The Complainant also alleged that G.M. caused soreness to her hands, and allegedly tried to avoid getting arrested by the police by running over to a nearby construction site. Yuvika Johri was retained as G.M.’s criminal defence lawyer. After much back and forth with the assigned Crown, Yuvika Johri negotiated the charge to be withdrawn in exchange for the client signing a peace bond. The evidence clearly established a motive to fabricate due to the issue of infidelity and numerous implausible facts in the statement to police. This was a classic example of a revenge charge.

Regina v. N.B. (2021)

Found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, of Sexual Assault. N.B. and the complainant had been dating for approximately two months prior to the date of the allegation. Over the pandemic the two had not been able to see each other and after having quarantined they decided to have a car date. During the car date the two became intimate however, the complainant alleged after that she felt pressured into sexual activity and pushed. The complainant spoke to police five days later and said that she had been pushed so hard that she vomited during the sexual act and the accused kept pushing her head and continued the sex act. The accused was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the statement of the complainant, had it transcribed and then obtained the entire messaging between the parties from the start of the relationship until after the night of the alleged incident. Assisting Joseph Neuberger was Diana Davison. The statement was broken down into chart form and analyzed. Many aspects seemed odd or implausible especially when viewed in light of the messaging. A section 276/278 motion was brought to make admissible the messaging and to be able to cross-examine the complainant on issues related to how the two communicated boundaries and consent; the evolution of the relationship and credibility. The motion was successful. At trial, extensive cross-examination took place on aspects of the complainant’s evidence that played down the relationship, and the complainant’s interest in N.B. Cross-examination on the messages yielded a rich foundation of inconsistencies and inaccurate or misleading answers by the complainant. In addition, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison spent considerable time assisting N.B. in understanding the trial process and about testifying at trial. The result was that the trial judge accepted and believed the evidence of N.B. and rejected parts of the complainant’s evidence as being not credible. N.B. was acquitted of Sexual Assault. * Important to note that where there is messaging between the complainant and the accused, careful attention must be paid to the drafting of the 276/278 motion in order to avoid myth based reasoning and apply the messages to grounded facts in the case yielding important evidence to support the defence narrative.

Regina v. A.D. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 7, Criminal Harassment and Threaten Death withdrawn on the eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Halton Region. A.D. and the complainant, his wife at the time, were in the midst of a separation. One morning while A.D. was attempting to take his son to swimming, the complainant and A.D. got into a heated argument. The argument escalated and there was a physical confrontation. The complainant called police and A.D. was charged with various domestic related offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure included a statement from the complainant and the older son of the marriage. The son had not seen an assault but came in during a moment when he thought he had seen his father’s hand raised. The client to his credit had made an audio recording of the event and of two prior arguments. Joseph Neuberger had the audio enhanced and the recordings transcribed. The recordings were disclosed to the Crown. The recording of the event that led to the charge, if listened to carefully, fairly clearly demonstrates that A.D. was slapped twice and then a third time very hard to which the son states “don’t hit back”. The content of the recordings did not deter the Crown from pursuing the charges. Joseph Neuberger also worked closely with the family lawyer and obtained documents from the family court matter that showed that in fact A.D. and the complainant were only common law and had never been civilly married. There was a religious marriage but no civil marriage. Just prior to the argument and the laying of charges, the complainant was arguing with A.D. about wanting him to move out and for her to have sole custody and have the house. As defence counsel reviewed the disclosure in the family case it became clear that the complainant had falsified a civil marriage certificate on a date that A.D. had conclusive evidence he was not in the country. Just prior to trial Joseph Neuberger again put together a chart and memo breaking down time frame by time from the audio recordings and disclosed the family court material. Upon extensive discussions a decision was made by the Crown that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. The client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.Y. (2021)

Charges of Utter Death Threats, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. J.Y. had been living with his girlfriend for a year and the two were experiencing a deterioration of their relationship. During an argument about who should be the one to move out, J.Y. took a pair of scissors and threatened to cut up the complainant’s favorite stuffed animal. The complainant called 911 and gave a statement that she felt physically threatened and J.Y. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer Toronto. After careful review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger sent J.Y. for counselling regarding conflict management and healthy skills in dealing with relationships. A report was provided to the Crown and on the facts there was no threat at all toward the complainant, only the stuffed animal. Charges withdrawn.

Regina v. R.D. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 7 and Assault with Weapon/Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn just prior to starting trial in Orangeville, Ontario. R.D. was in the midst of separation from his wife, the complainant, and an argument erupted over the children and finances. Not surprisingly after my client refused her requests and stated that his lawyer will handle these issues, he left the home and about three hours later, R.D. got a phone call from police to turn himself in. He was charged with an assault the day of the argument, and seven historical assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure including the complainant’s statement and limited medical records. The medical records did not support the complainant’s version on events on the assault causing bodily harm. Joseph Neuberger broke down the allegations in chart format and then hired a private investigator who took statements from the two of their children, and two other witnesses as to dates of some of the allegations. The two children, who we had hoped would not be brought into the matter, voluntarily provided statements and were concerned that their mother was providing false information to the police and to the prosecution. The statements from the two boys directly contradicted the complainant on two allegations. In addition, other witnesses provided statements of threats made by the complainant post separation about doing everything possible to ruin R.D. unless she got what she was asking for. As the matter proceeded close to trial, Joseph Neuberger, and the Crown prosecutor had detailed discussions about the frailties of the evidence. Joseph Neuberger provided defence disclosure and then conducted a further pre-trial. After extensive discussions, it was agreed that the Crown would withdraw the charges and the client would sign a peace bond.

Regina v. M.C. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Choaking withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Halton Region. M.C. was in a separation with his wife. The two had numerous arguments about the divorce and as so commonly occurs, M.C. was charged by the complainant with historical allegations of Assault and Choaking. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After receiving and reviewing the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger obtained extensive mental health records dating back to the time period of the alleged assaults. The complainant retained counsel. Joseph Neuberger spoke with the lawyer for the complainant, and it was revealed that the allegations, although in retaliation for her displeasure with the financial settlement offered in the divorce, were also a product of a delusional belief system. M.C. had said that unfortunately his wife, the complainant, was not well for over 10 years, and it appeared that operative mental health issues were a factor in making false accusations. Joseph Neuberger approached the Crown with a letter from the lawyer for the complainant and defence disclosure of the medical records. It was agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.B. (2021)

Charges of Breach of Recognizance and Assault Resist Arrest withdrawn at early stages of proceedings. J.B. had been on a peace bond and unfortunately suffered from mental health issues and comorbid substance use disorders. J.B. had consumed alcohol that caused a relapse and police had arrested J.B. and charged him with Breach and Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer and immediately obtain all related medical records, obtained an updated report from the physician and wrote the Crown that J.B. had tried endlessly to attach to a mental health social worker and community based psychiatrist during the pandemic but could not get any assistance. As a result, J.B. had been isolated and but for this one event, was doing extremely well managing his medication and sobriety without little supports. As such, the Crown immediately withdrew the charges.

Regina v. M.K. (2021)

Charges of Human Trafficking, Financial or Material Benefit from Trafficking Persons, Fraud over $5,000.00, Assault, and Utter Threats, all withdrawn prior to preliminary hearing. M.K. had allegedly brought into Canada a domestic caregiver for financial gain, and exploited the worker along with other related allegations. The evidence was not the usual or typical case of this kind. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers to represent M.K. An extensive defence investigation was undertaken after review of the Crown evidence. A voluminous package of materials were assembled along with a 25 page letter to the Crown outlining the defence evidence and establishing the fabrication of evidence, intentional misrepresentation of financial transactions, and legitimate legal means to bring the complainant into the country who had her own agenda as to what she wanted to do in Canada. Lega analysis was provided as well as to “exercise of control” and “benefit” that undermined the complainant’s narrative. After numerous pre-trials, a resolution was reached where withheld salary was paid to the complainant (which was appropriate), and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.J. (2021)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after five day judge alone trial by Zoom, in the Superior Court, Toronto. D.J. was accused by his wife’s sister of sexually assaulting her when she had been staying at the apartment of D.J. and his wife. The complainant moved in with D.J. and his wife due to her financial circumstances. About a week or so after moving in, she alleged that D.J. had entered her room around 2:00 a.m. and sexually assaulted her. She allegedly disclosed the allegation about a week later to D.J.’s wife and then did not go to the police until about one month later after her tires were slashed. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer Toronto. The disclosure consisted of a statement from the complainant and another sister of the complainant R.B. There was no physical evidence to support the allegations and the complainant had two dogs staying with her in her room at the apartment that D.J. was supposed to have removed without causing any noise prior to the sexual assault. There was a history between the complainant and D.J. as to a prior sexual relationship that was relevant to the defence narrative and why the complainant stated certain things about the alleged sexual assault and defence evidence that the complainant actually divulged the affair as opposed to a sexual assault to D.J.’s wife. All of this background information was highly relevant to issues of credibility and the defence narrative. As such, at trial Joseph Neuberger, brought a prior sexual history application under section 276/278 of the Criminal Code which was successful. At trial cross-examination of the complainant was lengthy detailed and confrontational yielding credibility issues but also intentional twisting of evidence particularly in relation to evidence of R.B.. In fact, in cross examination of the complainant criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged that she only told her sister of the details of the alleged sexual assault on the day she called police. The complainant stated that in fact she told her sister R.B. a month prior. The defence called R.B. and the evidence established that she was only told about the allegations on the date police was called about one month after the alleged assault. This was significant in a series of events yielding a motive to fabricate the allegation. D.J. was prepared for testimony and at trial proved to be a reliable witness. As such, the trial judge found D.J. not guilty of sexual assault.
Read More

Regina v. A.D. (2021)

Client charged with a domestic assault on his common law wife. The two were having an argument about family finances and the complainant called 911 alleging that A.D. punched her and threatened her. A.D. was charged with Assault, and Threaten Bodily Harm. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his Toronto Criminal Lawyer to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure and had the statement of the complainant transcribed. After careful review, there were no notes or indications of any injuries. The alleged assault, given the description by the complainant would certainly have resulted in visible injuries. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, criminal lawyer Toronto, obtained the 911 call made by the complainant. There were material discrepancies between the 911 call and the statement of the complainant. In the 911 call the complainant went on at some length (33 seconds) explaining and complaining about the argument over finances and the alleged domestic assault and threatening charges seemed quite secondary. Joseph Neuberger engaged in three judicial pre-trials, and after extensive discussions about the evidence negotiated a withdrawal of all charges in exchange for the client signing a peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

R v. BS (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Failure to Comply was withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown. The Complainant and BS were in a relationship for a short duration. An argument erupted between them both one day and the Complainant alleged that BS forcibly tried to restrain the Complainant in his car. Police were notified and upon meeting her, the complainant alleged that BSM grabbed her wrist and prevented her from leaving her workplace. Christopher Assie and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained by BSM as his criminal defence lawyers. After extensive review of disclosure and negotiations with Crown, the Crown agreed to a peace bond after successful competition of community service and anger management counselling.

R v. SG (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Failure to Comply X 2 were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. SG was in a relationship with the Complainant for a few years but separated thereafter. They share custody of their three children. The Complainant alleged that SG assaulted her on one occasion when she came to drop off their daughter at SG’s residence. The Complainant also made two other complaints for violation of bail conditions by SG on two different occasions. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to represent SG against the charges. The Crown was not willing to resolve because SG had been convicted for robbery and manslaughter in the past. After several pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Mariya and Yuvika were able to show that the Complainant’s allegations were false. The Crown reviewed all materials disclosed by the defence and concluded that the Complainant was filing false allegations. Crown withdrew all charges as prosecuting SG was not in public interest.

Regina v. Z.G. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. Z.G. had a dispute with two tenants that turned into a physical altercation. The two tenants called police and Z.G. was charged with Assault x 2. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Lawyer Toronto to defend the charges. Once disclosure was obtained, Joseph Neuberger turned over a recording made by Z.G.’s witness wherein the complainants are making threatening and disturbing comments to Z.G. Joseph Neuberger conducted a judicial pre-trial and presented a transcript of the recording. Although Z.G. did assault both complainants, this was in the context of him perceiving a serious physical threat, and as such, a resolution was worked out for a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.F. (2021)

Charge of Assault with a Weapon withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. M.F. was involved in a neighbour dispute and oddly was charged over a boundary issue that allegedly involved M.F. using yard instrument to strike the neighbour. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Photographs were taken of the property and after the disclosure was obtained, it was apparent that the complainant neighbour was on M.F. property at the time of the alleged assault. After two pre-trials with the assigned Crown, it was agreed that M.F. would sign a common law peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.J. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. R.J. and his wife were married for over 35 years. The relationship had deteriorated and R.J. was the caregiver for his wife who suffered from a very serious diabetic problem. The wife fell due to a drop in her blood sugar and R.J. called 911. The wife was admitted to hospital and while in hospital called police and alleged that R.J. punched her in the face causing the injuries. R.J. was arrested. The police DID NOT obtain the paramedics notes, or the hospital records. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had a detailed meeting with the client and found out that in fact over a two year period R.J. had called police and ambulance on over 50 occasions including due to aggressive behavior of his wife. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all of the 911 calls, brought an application to obtain the medical records and interviewed family members. All of the defence gathered evidence was provided to the Crown during a pre-trial. The medical records confirmed R.J.’s evidence that the complainant was hypoglycemic and had fallen. The injury was related to the fall and not a punch. The 911 calls also demonstrated a pattern of aggressive behavior of the complainant and multiple urgent medical issues. Further, the complainant contacted R.J. 32 times after charging him. Joseph Neuberger instructed R.J. to not answer but keep the voicemail messages. They were turned over as well to the assigned Crown. Oddly the assigned Crown did not want to withdraw even in the face of convincing evidence that R.J. was innocent. Joseph Neuberger scheduled a judicial pre-trial, filed a pre-trial memo and attached the evidence. After the judicial pre-trial the charge was formally withdrawn.

Regina v. A.D. (2020) – Conviction Overturned at the Court of Appeal

A.D. was charged with molesting his niece. He hired a lawyer (not Christopher Assié or anyone from Neuberger & Partners LLP). There was no physical evidence – only her word against his. A.D. told his lawyer he was innocent and that he never touched his niece inappropriately. His lawyer told him that he could not withstand being cross-examined by a professional Crown Attorney. His lawyer didn’t explain to him that if he didn’t testify in his own defence, the jury would be left with only his niece’s allegations. Effectively, his lawyer made the decision that A.D. would not testify. A.D. was promptly convicted by a jury. A.D. hired Christopher Assié to represent him for an appeal. A.D.’s allegations of how his trial lawyer failed to prepare him for trial were shocking. On appeal, Christopher Assié argued that the verdict was unfair because A.D. had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel allegations are very difficult to prove and appeals on those grounds are seldom granted. On appeal, Christopher Assié cross-examined A.D.’s trial counsel and established that he failed to properly advise A.D. regarding whether he should testify in his own defence. His trial lawyer believed after a few conversations with A.D. that he would not do well during cross-examination because he was a nervous and timid man. He never attempted to prepare A.D. to testify. The Court of Appeal found that Christopher Assié had succeeded in establishing that A.D. was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that a miscarriage of justice arose. They overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial. A.D. has hired Christopher Assié to represent him at his re-trial.

R v. JW (2020)

JW had been dating the Complainant for over a year. During a heated argument, police were called by room mates of the Complainant who allegedly saw injury marks on the Complainant and observed that his clothing had been ripped off as well. JW was charged with one count of Assault. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri were retained by JW. After a lot of back and forth with the Crown, a resolution for a peace bond was reached.

R v. AR (2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault. AR and the Complainant were new immigrants in Canada. Complainant and AR were engaged in a heated argument when a neighbor called the police. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant alleged that AR slapped her and pushed her. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent AR against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika convinced the Crown to not prosecute AR as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw charges against AR.

R. v. R.G.(2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault. This case involved an allegation of the client assaulting his spouse on their driveway after a night out of drinking. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case with the Crown’s eye witness and the real possibility for the defence to argue of self-defence. Charges against the client were withdrawn on Christmas Eve 2020, and the client entered into a peace bond at the courthouse in Milton.

Regina v. Y.H. (2020)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Client was charged by a co-worker of allegedly touching and kissing her after a shift. Y.H. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal lawyer. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure immediately and for some reason it took over six months to get the complainant’s statement. When it was transcribed and reviewed, the defence had a private investigator take a statement from another co-worker that disputed the event given that they were all present at the restaurant after the shift at the time the alleged sexual assault took place. The statement was disclosed by the defence to the Crown. Several judicial pre-trials were held, and a resolution for a common law peace bond was negotiated and the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Q. (2020)

Client found not guilty after five (5) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a school. He was very close with a number of other teachers at the school. On the eve of March break the teachers got together for an end of term social event. At the end of the night four people attended back at the complainant’s home for food, and more drinking. At some point later in the evening, K.Q. and the complainant were in the complainant’s bed. The two were intoxicated. The two had sexual relations. Within about a week, the complainant alleged a sexual assault to the school where they worked, and then went to police and a charge of sexual assault was laid. Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. Diana Davison joined the defence team as a specialist in false accusations and legal research. The disclosure was carefully reviewed, and a trial strategy was put in place. Careful attention was paid to cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, and developing the client to be ready for testifying at trial. In addition, much of the prosecution’s case revolved around capacity and male sexual stereotypes. The defence, assailed the evidence on the basis that the complainant was not too intoxicated to consent and the stereotypes are unfair to a male accused. In addition, there were text messages between the complainant and K.Q. prior to and after the alleged sexual assault. The defence was able to establish that the complainant had a prior interest in K.Q. that undermined her evidence at trial, and that the post messages from K.Q., although apologetic, were nevertheless simply acknowledgement of the feelings of the complainant but NOT a confession of doing something criminal. The evidence was complex, but after reliance upon relevant case law and focused submissions on key areas of reliability, the defence was able to establish that the crown could not prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court agreed that the complainant did not lack capacity and had reliability issues that compromised the Crown’s case. The complainant through cross-examination conceded that her memory was essentially unreliable due to “flashback” type memories and reconstructing her memory piece by piece over a week. The trial judge came to the conclusion that K.Q. was not guilty.

Regina v. D.A. (2020)

Client found not criminally responsible on charges of assault, mischief, assault with a weapon, dangerous driving x 3, assault peace officer, and criminal harassment. D.A. after being discharged from a short stay in hospital for a mental health issue, unfortunately had a number of encounters with past friends that resulted in damage and criminal charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, and the past medical records, it was apparent that D.A. was suffering from a major mental illness that was operative at the time of the offending conduct. Two defence forensic experts were retained. After extensive pre-trial discussions and trial was conducted and the defence established that D.A. was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.

Regina v. M.M.(2020)

Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threatening, and Assault with Weapon, withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. M.M. was in his car with the complainant, his girlfriend, and an argument ensued about M.M. wanting to end the relationship. The argument got so bad that M.M. stopped his car at an intersection and asked her to leave his car. She refused and grabbed his arm. He then pushed her and opened the door. During the struggle, the complainant called 911 and then eventually exited the car. M.M. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full 911 call had it transcribed and then conducted a pre-trial with the Crown. The 911 call seemed quite clear that M.M. had stopped the car, and asked the complainant to leave who refused. The complainant then is heard swearing at M.M. and threatening him. The struggle can be heard but there were no injuries and M.M. is heard as saying to the complainant to stop hitting him. Joseph Neuberger agreed to a common law peace bond and all charges were withdrawn. * It was unfortunate that the 911 call was not more carefully reviewed.

Regina v. V.D. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Threatening and Assault causing Bodily Harm, withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Brampton. V.D. and his wife were have ongoing arguments about financial issues. During an argument, V.D. was doing his work in the office of their home. The complainant knocked away his computer and the two struggled over the computer. The complainant called police and alleged a very serious assault including punching to the head. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. The disclosure was obtained and the police notes did not have any observation of injury. The office of the home was noted to be in disarray consistent with V.D.’s version of events. The statement of the complainant was not consistent and in fact had internal inconsistencies. Numerous pre-trials were conducted and V.D. undertook private therapy. The bail was amended and the couple entered into joint therapy to address their marital issues. V.D. signed a peace bond for 6 months and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.E. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property all withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto. The complainant had been living with W.E. for about 8 months. The complainant had a alcohol abuse issue. On the night of the charges W.E. was concerned about the level of intoxication of the complainant and had asked her to leave his apartment. The complainant left but returned a few hours later. All of her clothes were packed and outside the apartment. The complainant entered the apartment and an argument ensued that became physical. W.E. called 911 and when police arrived and interviewed both parties, W.E. got charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer. The complainant’s statement was literally nonsensical and the police notes disclose that the complainant was highly intoxicated. W.E. had injuries in the form of fresh scratches. During pre-trials the Crown had to be reminded that W.E. was on the lease and his girlfriend was a guest and not a tenant. He had full right to ask her to leave and to defend himself. The chares were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.G. (2020)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. D.G. is a foreign trained physician. In Canada he was writing his equivalency exams and working at a clinic. One of the patients during a meeting for a medical note for her school alleged that D.G. hugged her, and slide his hand up her leg and groped her buttocks. The client was charged with Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure, including a very limited interview of the Vice Principal of the school where the complainant had been attending. The complainant attended the client’s clinic and had reoccurring throat infections. But on this date the complainant wanted a note just to give her school in case they needed a medical letter about her absences. Joseph Neuberger had the VP interviewed in a more thorough manner, and it was apparent that the complainant was missing a lot of school days and was in jeopardy of not being able to continue in the program. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of important facts that she was unclear about and specifically about her evidence and her mother’s evidence that no medical note was necessary. Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed the Vice Principal and established that in fact a meeting took place three days before D.G. was charged wherein the VP made it clear that if the complainant was going to miss more dates it was vital for her to get a medical record. In addition, it seems the complainant did not want to attend school due to issues with peers. She was to be changing schools after the first semester. The theory of the defence was that D.G. was asked for a medical note about future dates to be missed, which was not possible. The complainant wanted a favour as she was not sick when she went to see D.G. and needed the note to excuse her for the rest of the semester. When a note was finally drafted, the complainant believed that the note would help her. When she read it, the note did not help her and she needed another excuse to be absent from school such as a sexual assault allegation. D.G. was prepared for testimony and gave evidence at trial. The trial judge found reliability issues arising from cross-examination of the complainant’s evidence particularly around the purpose of the visit but other significant details. The trial judge also accepted the evidence of D.G. In the end, D.G. was found not guilty of Sexual Assault.

Regina v. A.A.J. (2020)

Six (6) charges of sexual assault alleged by the former girlfriend of client withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Collingwood. A.A.J. was in a relationship that was turbulent. The client had concerns about advancing the relationship and arguments were frequent about marriage. The client ended the relationship and asked for no more contact. The next A.A.J. was charged with six counts of Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was hired at the criminal defence lawyer. Two detailed judicial pre-trial were held and Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction based on email and text communications from the complainant leading up to the day before the client was charged. Under the new 278 section of the Criminal Code, these messages would need to be vetted in a motion. Joseph Neuberger decided to draft the motion, with a detailed memo on how the messages undermine the statement of the complainant and provide all of the material to the Crown for review. The Crown determined that not only was there no reasonable prospect of conviction, the messages indicated that the complainant was stalking the client and was angry that he ended the relationship and charged him in revenge. A very clear case of false accusations. The Crown was excellent and open minded in the review. All charges withdrawn.

Regina v. O.H. (2020)

Charges of Assault x 2, and Utter Death Threats withdrawn just prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. O.H. and the complainant had been married for 14 years. The two had separated a few times and during the time of the allegations were separated and living in the same home. There was an argument about O.H. having cheated in the past, and about him not being suitable to have shared custody of their children. O.H. left the house to take a break from the argument and when he arrived back home, police were waiting and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages from O.H. between O.H. and his wife, photographs of his own injuries and worked with the family lawyer. The family law documents were very helpful as the complainant set out different facts regarding the assault but clearly stated that she was seeking sole custody and exclusive possession of the house. Joseph Neuberger continued discussions with the Crown including disclosing the family court material and some recordings of arguments. Eventually the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. H.J. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after months of discussions with the assigned crown attorney, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. H.J. was in a short relationship with the complainant. At a point when the couple were arguing about where the relationship was leading and a sense from the complainant that H.J. had cheated on her, H.J. ended the relationship. A few days later another argument erupted via text about returning property to H.J. At that point the complainant made allegations of sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained all electronic communications before and after the break up of the relationship. The couple had in fact messaged a considerable amount each day and argued over messaging. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a statement taken from friend of the couple who was present for a significant argument. The messages, statement and a detailed memo was produced by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous pre-trials it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Threatening, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. S.G. and the complainant were separated but living under the same roof – still in the matrimonial home. An argument occurred between S.G. and his wife about who should leave the house. A day later S.G. was charged. He was arrested, placed on bail that prevented him from attending at the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Application for Divorce filed by the complainant which included the allegations and sought exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. The core of the argument for sole custody of the assault allegations. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials, disclosed the family court material and negotiated a peace bond resolution. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.Y. (2020)

Charges of Utter Death Threats withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Unfortunately Y.Y. is intellectually disabled and during a frustrating period in his life at a special school, Y.Y. uttered threats to several students in the same program. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the most recent cognitive assessment and send Y.Y. for further assessment and conflict management therapy. Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown the cognitive assessments, and the therapy report. There were some elements of Y.Y. feeling bullied and Y.Y. was not coping well and not skilled enough to seek help. But after therapy had developed very good coping skills. The Crown agreed and withdrew the charges.

R. v. C.A. (2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property. This case involved an allegation of the client assaulting his spouse at a hotel where an alleged affair was to take place. The client retained John Navarrete. After requesting the hotel video surveillance, and having the client complete counselling, Mr. Navarrete was able to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case and the real possibility for the defence to argue of self-defence. All charges against the client were withdrawn and the client entered into a peace bond at the courthouse in Brampton.

R. v. E.P. (2020)

Client was charged with Assault, and Assault with Weapon for an alleged fight using a bat involving various individuals in a grocery parking lot. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent her on this serious charge. After hiring a private investigator and putting together various documents and videos from social media, Mr. Navarrete provided all materials for the Crown’s consideration and convince the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to withdraw the criminal charge against the client.

R. v. A.M. (2020)

Client charged with Assault, Resist Arrest and Theft Under $5,000. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and the surveillance of the grocery store which depicted a different picture than was contained in the criminal allegation. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-trial with the Crown Attorney’s office at 1000 Finch Ave West and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all the criminal charges.

R. v. M.K. (2020)

Client was charged with Assault (X4) involving various incidents of alleged domestic assault against his spouse. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on these charges. Mr. Navarrete put together various documents including the civil action in India, video recordings, emails and text messages to establish that the spouse was possibly extorting the client for money. As a result, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges against the client at the courthouse at 1000 Finch Ave West, Toronto.

Regina v. AD (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault X2 and Utter Threats were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. AD was in a relationship with the Complainant for almost two years. The Complainant alleged that AD assaulted her on two different occasions and threatened to kill her. John Navarrete and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to represent AD against the charges. After much back and forth with the Crown, John and Yuvika were able to show that the Complainant’s allegations were false. The Crown reviewed all materials disclosed by the defence, including e-mails and messages sent by Complainant trying to extort AD. Crown withdrew all charges as prospect of conviction was low.

Regina v. BC (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn. BC and the Complainant were international students who had been dating for almost a year and a half. While playing a card game, an argument ensued, and Complainant alleged that BC shoved her against a window by grabbing her collar. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri were retained as criminal defence lawyers for BC. Mariya and Yuvika reviewed disclosure diligently and conducted several pre-trials with the Crown. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw charges on successful completion of counselling and allowing BC to sign a peace bond.

Regina v. AS (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown. The Complainant and AS were heavy alcohol drinkers. An argument erupted between them both one day and the Complainant was spotted at a traffic signal intoxicated. Police was notified and upon meeting her, Complainant alleged that AS grabbed her wrist and prevented her from leaving their residence. When police met AS, they observed that although AS was intoxicated as well, the Complainant left scratches and bruises on AS. She had no injuries on her. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri from Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained by AS. After extensive review of disclosure and negotiations with Crown, Crown agreed to withdraw charges against AS after successful competition of alcohol counselling.

Regina v. Y.S.Y. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Domestic Assault x 2, and Mischief, withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Y.S.Y, and the complainant were dating while attending U of T. At some point the relationship deteriorated and the two ended their relationship. When Y.S.Y. started dating another lady, Y.S.Y. had a number of encounters with Y.S.Y. during which she was highly aggressive. After the final encounter, Y.S.Y. complained to university security of sexual assault and assault allegations. The police were called and Y.S.Y. was charged. The university commenced an internal investigation into the allegations and if found to be true on a balance of probabilities, Y.S.Y. would have been expelled. Joseph Neuberger, and Mariya Protsenko were retained as Y.S.Y.’ s criminal defence lawyers. Immediately after reviewing the statement of the complainant, and extensive interview with the client, Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview six witnesses to the alleged assaults. Each statement was supportive of the defence position. In fact, the complainant’s own statement to police notes that the complainant went up to Y.S.Y. and struck him first and Y.S.Y. protected himself. However, for some reason the police still charged with a count of assault. All defence witness statements were provided to the Crown. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, represented Mr. Y.S.Y., in the university investigation. The client was interviewed in the presence of Joseph Neuberger, all defence interviews were turned over to the university investigator and the defence had opportunity to put evidence before the university investigation including a defence analysis of the evidence of the complainant. Eventually, the university investigation concluded that the complainant lacked credibility even on a balance of probabilities and noted that she had admitted to assaulting Mr. Y.S.Y. As such, Y.S.Y. succeeded in the university investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger then filed extensive writing materials with the Crown to address the lack of any reasonable prospect of conviction in the criminal case. In addition, a further judicial pre-trial was conducted and based upon principled discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges. ** It is important as a take-away from this case that for those students charged with domestic or sexual allegations with a fellow student and a university investigation is commenced, it is vital to be able to have proper legal advise and representation as the process is not the same as the criminal process and can also have life altering consequences if not properly handled.

Regina v. A.H. (2020)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.H. and the complainant had known each other for approximately five years. They remained in contact but never dated. An arrangement was made for the complainant to attend A.H.’s apartment to have drinks and catch up. The complainant was supposed to attend earlier in the evening but arrived around 1:00 a.m. with a backpack and her purse. The two drank and had a pleasant evening. A.H. showed pictures of his two sons who were living with him full time. At some point the complainant alleged that A.H. left the apartment to obtain GHB and returned and forced her to drink the GHB. In addition, the complainant alleged that she got sick, vomited and then A.H. tried to force himself on the complainant. The complainant refused to leave the apartment after A.H. had asked her to leave and then alleged that she could call police. A.H. video recorded some of their interaction and eventually the complainant left, called police and A.H. was charged with Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages exchanged between the parties prior to and just after the complainant left the apartment. After leaving the complainant wrote in a text that she hopes his kids get kicked to the curb just like she was. Joseph Neuberger brought a motion under section 278 to admit the messages as evidence and the video recording. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of material inconsistencies between her two statements to police. In addition, detailed cross-examination was undertaken on what was captured on video and the text messaging. It appeared that the complainant had attended A.H.’s apartment to party and stay over. Joseph Neuberger prepared A.H. to testify. At trial A.H. testified that in fact the complainant had procured the GHB and drank it herself while using a bottle cap to dose out the GHB and not “G-out”. A.H. testified that all sexual contact was consensual but after he asked the complainant to leave and not stay over because he did not want his two boys waking up and meeting her, an argument broke out during which the complainant stated that she could just “call police and say he forced himself on her”. In fact, during cross-examination of the complainant on the video, right after A.H. requested the complainant to leave, the complainant said “ok then I will call the police.” The defence called other contradictory evidence to support the position that the complainant was not telling the truth about the evening. After extensive submissions, A.H. was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. T.H. (2020)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after five day trial. T.H. was a student in a University. T.H. and the complainant attended a friend’s house for a pre-drink prior to going to the bars. The house party went on for some hours and everyone played drinking games. Eventually T.H. and the complainant left the house and went back to his house. The two had intimate relations. The complainant woke up in T.H.’s house and did not remember the night. She spoke with T.H. who advised her that they had sex and about speaking about sex before being intimate. There were details about birth control and the complainant menstrating. The complainant left and over the course of a week spoke with friends and another female student who was at the house party. The conclusion was that she could not have consented and having been intoxicated she lacked the capacity to consent. The complainant sent a text to T.H. accusing him of sexual assault. T.H. replied and apologized and gave his version of the evening and sex. The complainant filed a complaint with the University and then the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his crininal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger put together a team from his office of John Navarrete and Diana Davison to work on the defence. At trial Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined all Crown witnesses to demonstrate their biased and wrongly held views on consent and capacity to consent and within that context their evidence was not reliable. There were many other areas of cross-examination after a successful 276 application about prior behavior of the complainant that undermined her evidence. For example the complainant alleged previous held attitudes about sex while menstruating; about sex for the first time with a man and her attitude of not being interested in T.H. that the Crown relied upon to demonstrate lack of consent. Cross-examination elicited evidence that directly contradicted these “attitudes” undermining the assertions of lack of consent. In relation to lack of capacity, Joseph Neuberger assailed the notion that an intoxicated party cannot consent. In fact an intoxicated consent is still consent. It may be that while intoxicated the complainant made choices that were not in her best interest and contrary to what she would normally do when sober but that in and of itself did not establish incapacity. Further, it became dangerously obvious that the “consent” education at the University was dramatically out of line with the law and infected the evidence with a skewed view of what actually took place the evening of the house party. Finally, underlying the evidence was an inherent bias about male sexual stereotypes that were improperly applied to the evidence including how it was used to frame T.H.’s text apology as a confession. After extensive written and oral submissions T.H. was found not guilty of sexual assault. To read the full text of the judgement

Regina v. K.W. (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn well prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. K.W. and his wife were having marital issues. An argument erupted regarding finances of the family and relationship issues. The complainant wanted K.W. to leave the home and live somewhere else. When he refused, a 911 call was made by the complainant and K.W. was charged with Assault and Mischief. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Shortly after the charges were laid, the complainant sent a letter to the Crown about the motive for calling the police. This was also send to Joseph Neuberger. In reviewing the statement and 911 call, it was apparent, as so often we see in these cases, more concern by the complainant about the relationship than issues about any type of domestic violence. A Zoom conference was set up with a judge and the assigned Crown. There were two children of the marriage and the parties wanted to reconcile. Joseph Neuberger arranged for joint marriage counselling and therapy on conflict management. After successful completion of the therapy, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.S. (2020)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. P.S. was married to the complainant for a short-term. It was an arranged marriage and upon immigrating to Canada multiple arguments arose regarding the relationship and finances of the marriage. On the date of separation, the complainant contacted police and alleged a historic sexual assault from earlier in the marriage. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence lawyers. Upon receiving the disclosure, the statement of the complainant demonstrated more concern over insignificant issues in the marriage than the sexual assault. During the criminal process, the complainant retained a family lawyer, and in the correspondence a demand for a lump sum was sought along with reference to the criminal charges. The client was referred to a family lawyer, and a defence on both fronts was marshalled. After some defence disclosure of information received through the family court process, extensive pre-trials took place and ultimately it was determined that the charge ought to be withdrawn in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.L. and X.L. (2020)

Charges of Assault x 5 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations, Ontario Court, Scarborough. C.L. and X.L. are son and mother and were charged with a domestic incident regarding C.L.’s girlfriend. Allegations stem form living together and a series of arguments culminating on the day of the charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer for both person accused. Once disclosure was received, Joseph Neuberger disclosed audio recorded arguments prior to the date of the offences showing a history of animus from the complainant and her father. It seemed that arguments centered around the living arrangement and the defence took the position that the alleged assaults were in fact a plan by the complainant to orchestrate a removal of C.L and X.L. from the home and an abatement of their portion of rent. Regardless, Joseph Neuberger conducted several pre-trials and given the nature of the offences, a peace bond resolution was worked out and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.R. (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.R. was married to the complainant for over two decades. The marriage was coming to an end, and after a heated argument about selling the matrimonial house, the complainant contacted police when M.R. was at work. The complainant alleged an assault. M.R. was arrested, ordered to stay away from the matrimonial house and had no way of obtaining his belongings. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the family court documents, it became readily apparent the charge was used to gain leverage in the family court proceedings. Divorce proceedings had started prior to the charge. After the charge, the court pleadings were amended and the complainant alleged a history of abuse and then charge. Sadly, one of the children of the marriage had to be interviewed to determine what happened on the day of the alleged assault. The evidence did not corroborate the complainant’s version. After extensive discussions, prior to trial, an agreement was reached for M.R. to sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. The was agreed upon with no admission of any liability but was done to prevent one of the children having to testify at the trial. As such, the charge of assault was withdrawn.

R. v. W.Y. (2020)

The client was charged with Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. The client and the complainant have been married for many years and had two children in common. The tension between the client and the complainant started when the client’s mother has moved in with them. The complainant alleged that on one of the occasions, the client and her were arguing about the client’s mother and the client has slapped the complainant on her face. It was alleged that the client proceeded to close the complainant’s mouth and nose with his palm, choking her. The Crown took the allegations very seriously as choking was involved. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as a defence counsel. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who was hesitant to withdraw the charge, however, agreed to a lengthy adjournment for the client to attend counseling. The client completed very substantial amount of private counseling. In addition, the complainant provided a letter that she didn’t fear the client and wished for them to resume their relationship. After careful negotiations with the prosecutor, Mariya convinced him to withdraw the charge. The charge against the client was withdrawn.

R. v. M.H. (2020)

The client was charged with two counts of Domestic Assault. The client and the complainant were a married couple with a young child. The complainant alleged that a number of years ago the client had pushed the complainant while she was pregnant. In addition, the complainant alleged that the client has hit her in the stomach while they were arguing and the complainant fell as a result of the hit. The complainant ran from the apartment unit to the security desk, laid down on the floor crying and asking the security officer to call 911. The security office called police who attended, spoke to the complainant and arrested the client. The client retained Mariya Protsenko, of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The complainant retained her own counsel and advised Mariya that she wanted to reconcile with the client, however, she was unwilling to retract her allegations. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who offered the client to complete an anger management course, PARS. The client has refused to do that and was willing to do couple’s counseling instead. The Crown agreed to vary the client’s bail order to allow him to partake in the couple’s counseling with the complainant. Upon the completion of the couple’s counseling, Mariya spoke to the prosecutor again which resulted in withdrawal of charges.

R. v. N. P. (2020)

The client was a respondent in a peace bond matter. The Applicant was the client’s son in law and there has been a long history of animosity between the two of them. The client’s daughter was going through a high conflict divorce with the Applicant as well as the Children Aid Society was involved. The Applicant audio recorded the client allegedly threatening him during agreed children drop off/pick up. The client retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The case involved numerous police occurrence reports, CAS’s reports, text and email correspondence. Once the hearing was scheduled, Mariya tirelessly prepared the client to testify as well as to be cross examined. Mariya also prepared the client’s daughter if additional witness was required. Mariya carefully crafted a cross examination for the Applicant and drafted submissions. During a hearing, Mariya successfully cross-examined the Applicant, re-cited case law and made submissions why the peace bond should not be issued against the client. The Justice of the Peace agreed with Mariya’s submissions and declined to issue a peace bond against her client. The peace bond Application was dismissed.

Regina v. P.J. (2020)

The client was charged with Domestic Assault. During the course of a dispute with his wife, the police were called and an allegation was made about physical contact. P.J. was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure was received, and after detailed review and numerous pre-trials with the Crown, it was negotiated that the client would undertake a course of therapy and eventual joint marriage counselling. If the therapy was successful, the charge would be withdrawn with a peace bond. The therapy completed and was successful. The COVID-19 issue arose and the courts were having issues processing cases for people not in custody. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, entered into discussions with the assigned crown and after much back and forth it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn with no peace bond. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Z.Z. (2020)

Charges of Harassing Calls, Utter Death threats x 3, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. Z.Z. and his wife were having marriage difficulties. After a heated argument, apparently the complainant wife contacted police and charges were laid related to her and the two children. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After an extensive interview with the client, it was discovered that the complainant had been having an affair for over two years and Z.Z. was very distraught and had been coerced into remaining in the marriage or he would not see his children again. On the date of the allegations, the complainant and Z.Z. were to meet over dinner and discuss their marriage. The complainant did not show up, and heated text messages were allegedly exchanged. Z.Z. took the two children to a movie. When he got home police were at the house and he was arrested, and put on conditions to have not contact with his family. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of various text messages that established the affair, and the threats to keep Z.Z. in the marriage. A request for a forensic review of the complainant’s cell phone to substantiate her allegations was not satisfied. The defence disclosed messages consisted with the defence position and after extensive discussions, the case was resolved for all charges being withdrawn, and Z.Z. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. H.C. (2020)

H.C. found not guilty after three-day judge alone trial, Toronto of Robbery with a Firearm. Someone had posted a fake escort advertisement and when the complainant showed up for his ‘date’, he was met by two masked robbers who pointed firearms at him and robbed him. The complainant could not provide clear identification of the robbers. All the police had to go on was the cellphone number that was used in the advertisement. A couple of weeks later, the police received a call from an anonymous tipster describing having been robbed in the same manner as the complainant with the robbers using the same fake advertisement for the escort and the same phone number. The tipster indicated that he had been instructed by the robbers to attend a particular address. The police went to the area and located H.C. and his co-accused sitting in a vehicle. The police arrested them. They located two firearms and the cellphone with the phone number used in the fake advertisements. The police acquired the phone records for the cellphone. Though it was registered to a fake name, the phone was used to make several calls to family members of H.C. Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. In discussions with the Crown, the Crown felt it was a “slam dunk” against H.C. but that they did not have sufficient evidence against H.C.’s co-accused and eventually withdrew against him prior to trial. The Crown was very confident and did not understand why H.C. was not pleading guilty. After all, the phone that was used to set up the robberies made repeated calls to H.C.’s family in the month of the robberies, H.C. was found in a vehicle with the cellphone in question, with H.C. and two firearms. In the Crown’s opinion, this was slam dunk. However, under careful scrutiny, the evidence melted away. The Crown was unable to call the evidence that the cellphone was used on the night H.C. was arrested to set up an identical robbery to the one he was on trial for. The reason was that the anonymous tipster’s statements to the police was hearsay and thus inadmissible. The relevance of the two firearms found in the car on night of the arrest was not relevant to proving the identity of the robbers. The firearms used on the night of the robbery were described differently than those located in the car on the night of the arrest. The Crown failed to appreciate that the co-accused – the one whom the Crown ultimately withdrew against – was H.C.’s cousin. The defence was able to establish that it was common for H.C.’s cousin to contact his extended family members by phone. How then could we be sure that the phone belonged to H.C. and not his former co-accused? Both equally had access to the phone that was linked to the robbery. In the end, the judge found H.C. not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. D.T. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault,  Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Obtaining Services for Consideration of Person under 18, Make and Possess Child Pornography all withdrawn at start of trial.  The client was on a website known as Secret Benefits and had contacted someone advertising as a 19 year old.  One thing led to another and a few days after being at D.T.’s residence police attended for an unrelated issue and it was discovered that the complaintant was under 18. At all times the complainant represented herself as at least 18 years of age. However D.T. was charged with various offences arising from his activities with the complainant.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The crown operated on the basis that D.T. had to take “all reasonable steps” to verify the age of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the messaging and posts relevant to establish that the complaintant represented herself and answered questions consistent with being 18 and 19. The case law does not establish that requesting and checking the person’s identification is necessary. D.T. did take reasonable steps and as such all charges withdrawn.

Regina v. P.G. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn after extensive preliminary hearing. P.G. was in early stages of dating the complainant and the two had sexual interaction. After P.G. failed to contact the complainant, the complaintant concluded, in her mind, that she was sexually assaulted during two dates with P.G. and went to the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer and the firm’s senior paralegal Grace Condello assisted with the defence.  Diligent defence work resulted in obtaining through disclosure and data recovery of the complainant’s phone text messages including critical evidence of messages between the complainant and her friend about P.G. “Ghosting” the complainant and how upset she was. Also the complainant with the assistance of her friend set up fake Facebook book accounts and posted remarks regarding the complaintant and threatened him via Facebook messaging.  The complainant after all of the messaging then had gone to police and laid the charges. Thus, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger uncovered solid evidence that the allegations were made as a result of the complainant feeling jilted by P.G. During cross examination at the preliminary hearing the complainant was challenged on all of the defence evidence and it then became obvious that the complaintant was not credible nor reliable about the allegations.  As a result the charges were withdrawn.
Note:  Sadly the federal government’s new legislation amending the Criminal Code under Bill C 51 and Bill C 75 will now make this type of defence much more difficult. The new amendments eliminate preliminary hearings for sexual assault cases. Also because of Bill C 51 lawyers will have to disclose and argue at a hearing the relevance of all the messages and Facebook messaging that was so important in this case.  Thus from now on the complainant will get full disclosure from the defence well prior to trial of such evidence and can argue it is not relevant and ought to be excluded. As well there are no more preliminary hearings . Such changes are a shameful attack on due process and the ability of anyone accused, male or female, to make full answer and defence.  In this case, solid defence work uncovered clear evidence of motive to fabricate and in the future the ability to defend has become a greater challenge.  That is why experience is necessary to defend sexual assault charges.

Regina v. M.C. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under withdrawn on day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  The client and the complainant had been married for nine years.  The couple had been arguing for years about various issues including finances.  In October of 2018 the couple had an argument after the complainant made a comment about M.C. being fat.  The complainant alleged that she was assaulted and later that day called police. The client was charged with offences also dating back a few months and then in 2016.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  About a month after, the complainant brough an Application in family court for divorce but also sought sole custody.  M.C. was limited to what time he could spend with the two children.  Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court material, the disclosure and additional material from the client about exchanges that suggested there was a rift in the marriage for some time as the complainant had been very aggressive about what M.C. should be doing for her financially and that the complainant had been sending money to her family via a separate account without M.C,.’s knowledge.  Extensive time was spent with M.C. preparing him for trial and developing cross examination.  Certain material was disclosed by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger to the Crown suggesting that the allegations were motivated by gaining leverage in a family court proceeding to not only have sole custody but also substantial child support.  At trial, the Crown considered all of the evidence and agreed to withdraw all charges if the client signed a common law peace bond.  The result was in the best interests of bringing down conflict so both the complainant and M.C. could bring their family law matter to a close and for the client to obtain shared custody.  As such, M.C. signed a common law peace bond and the charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. A.F.S. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3, and Threaten Death, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, at trial.  The complainant had charged the client on four (4) previous occasions and each time sought that the accused ought to receive a peace bond.   On this occasion, an argument erupted regarding my client wanting to end the marriage.  The complainant had discovered a letter noting that A.F.S. had retained a family lawyer.  The complainant called police and alleged new Assault and Threatening charges.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer Toronto on the file.  Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure on all of the prior charges and subpoenaed the pictures of the client’s injuries from one occurrence and obtained the Affidavits of the complainant provided on two of the prior charges were the complainant averred that she fabricated the allegations to avoid being charged by A.F.S.  It appears that A.F.S. had indeed been assaulted more than once by the complainant.  Once all of this material was gathered, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the material to the Crown.  Oddly the Crown at first took the position that the evidence was collateral and not relevant.  Joseph Neuberger responded that a pattern of fabrication cannot be “collateral” and is a direct impugnment of the complainant’s credibility.  At trial, further discussions took place and eventually all charges were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. J.T. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 and Sexual Interference x 2 withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice Scarborough.   J.T. was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter on at least two occasions when J.T. was intoxicated.  The allegations were only disclosed two years after they were supposed to have occurred.  J.T. retained defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges.  CAS had been involved in the investigation, and after a few months, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain the entire CAS file, and after careful review the notes of the youth worker seemed to suggest that the complainant had not only recanted early after the police took the statement but that the allegations arose after a period of parental discipline by J.T. that the complainant deemed too harsh and restrictive of her social life.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the relevant notes during a judicial pre-trial to a judge and the Crown.  It was interesting the CAS never felt it necessary to directly communicate these facts to the Crown or police.  After continued discussions, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. M.F.S. (2020)

Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, and Threatening x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto.  M.F.S. was intoxicated one night with his former girlfriend. During an argument about him possibly having been unfaithful to her, she directed M.F.S. to contact via text and phone a former friend of hers to impersonate someone and intimidate and harass the complainant.  This went on for several days during which the complainant contacted police and eventually M.F.S. was identified as the culprit and arrested.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer to defend the charges.  Joseph Neuberger had an investigator take a statement from M.F.S. former girlfriend, and indeed, she confessed to orchestrating the event and coercing M.F.S. while he was quite intoxicated.  Joseph Neuberger sent the client for therapy as to his susceptibility to such an offence and alcohol counselling.  During the therapy, the forensic psychologist interviewed the former girlfriend who again confirmed her involvement.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the therapy report and the interview of the girlfriend to the Crown assigned and it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn if M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond.  Thus, all charges were withdrawn and M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond.

 

Regina v. W.W. (2019)

Charges of Assault x 3, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic) all withdrawn at first court appearance.  W.W. was confronted by his girlfriend about an alleged affair (she misread a text message) and the girlfriend/complainant severely assaulted W.W.  W.W. called 911.  W.W. went to hospital with a gash to his left eyebrow, multiple abrasions and a possible concussion.  W.W. gave a brief statement to police at the hospital but the complainant gave a video recorded statement at the police station at the same time.  When released from the hospital, W.W. was charged with assaulting his girlfriend.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger obtained the medical records and pictures of the injuries of W.W.  Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed disclosure letter not only seeking disclosure but a detailed response to how a decision was made to charge his client.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also provided the medical records and pictures in support and suggested in the letter that not only was his client wrongfully accused, but there was an obvious gender bias that can result in a lawsuit.  On the first appearance the Crown withdrew all charges.

 

Regina v. H.T. (2019)

Client found not guilty after trial on a single count of breaching a section 161 order.  H.T. had plead guilty in 2015 to offences related to sexual interference and sexual assault.  A section 161 order was made for a term of five years.  One prohibition was to not apply for work related to anyone under the age of 16.  H.T. had applied for a job to tutor, but had thought it was just for editing of papers of University Students. The person offering the position, went to police alleging that H.T. had applied for a tutor position that could involve students ages 8 and up.  Joseph Neuberger as retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the case.  Joseph Neuberger sourced out the website of the tutoring company, the job description and retrieved from the client all email exchanges.  Aside from disclosure that was provided, it became apparent that the complainant and her business marketed to university students, and in fact the position was not posted on the website and the complainant could not recall if at any time any mention was made of students other than students in University.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and another employee of the tutoring business and it was established that the complainant was not forthright about what position was offered, and in fact misrepresented what the position was that H.T. had applied for.  There was no mention nor evidence that H.T. applied to tutor anyone other than university level students.  Without going into other detail, cross-examination revealed that the complainant simply took it upon herself to allege something that in fact was not an accurate reflection of the job or H.T.’s application.  H.T. was found not guilty at trial as H.T. had obeyed the strict terms of the 161 order and not breached the order.

 

Regina v. O.I. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after successful negotiations at the Judicial pre-trial stage, Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. An argument between a husband and wife culminated in the husband allegedly hitting the wife on her head in front of their children. The altercation was reported by the father of the wife with the wife providing a statement. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained to represent O.I. on the assault charge.  Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and found numerous issues in the wife’s statement.  After three extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko conducted a Judicial pre-trial at which time it was agreed that the prospect of conviction was low and the client entered into into a peace bond and the charge was formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. Y.Z. (2019)

Directed verdict of not guilty granted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Sexual Interference x 2.  The client had been married to his wife, Y.W, for over 9 years and there was a daughter, who was the complainant in this case.  In August of 2018 the complainant came forward with allegations that in 2015 Y.Z. had touched her breast and then for the balance of 2015 and 2016 had committed various acts of touching in her bedroom.  These allegations came forward right at the time that Y.Z. and his wife were having extensive arguments about his son from a previous marriage coming to Canada to live with them.  These arguments were so disruptive that the Y.Z and his wife longer shared a bedroom and agreed to separate in August of 2018.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements, and obtained from the client a detailed history and chronology of all events from their marriage up his date of charge. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents, and messages between Y.Z. and his wife.  While the case was ongoing, new disclosure was provided of a partial recording made by the wife in August of 2018 where she questioned him about the alleged sexual assault.  The recording was less than one minute and cut off at the end.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant about the allegations and established inconsistencies and implausible facts.  However, Joseph Neuberger had court break early and so the mother, Mr. Y.Z. would testify the next day.  Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger suspected that the complainant and her mother would speak over night prior to the mother/wife testifying.  The next day the mother testified and Joseph Neuberger vigorously cross-examined her, showing first that it was obvious that the complainant and her mother had spoken about the cross-examination thus showing collusion, and second, the recording was obviously cut off.  Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the recording and the complainant insisted it was a confession by Y.Z. and that he had not denied the allegations.  However, under cross-examination she admitted that what she had turned over to the police was only a small part of a nine (9) minute recording.  Thus, court was adjourned as a police officer attended at the mother’s residence and retrieved a copy of the full and complete recording.  After careful review with the Crown, it was apparent that the mother, Y.W., had lied to the court and the police about the nature of the recording and in fact a full transcript of the recording showed that Y.Z. had indeed denied the allegations and the mother only gave what portion she wanted to provide to the police to try and convince them that he had admitted the offence.  Thus, the Crown assessed the case and based on the evidence arising from cross-examination invited the Court to enter not guilty verdicts on all charges.

 

Regina v. J.S. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdraw prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  J.S. was charged after an argument with an owner of a competing restaurant in a mall.  J.S. was alleged to have struck the complainant several times.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer.  There was no video surveillance from the mall and the disclosure on the case was very slim.  There were no injuries to the complainant.  Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to take some statements from employees of other restaurants who may have witnessed the incident. The statements disclosed that in fact the complainant instigated the event. These statements were turned over to the Crown.  After several discussions, it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn and J.S. would sign a common law peace bond.  As such, the charge of Assault was formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. Z.C. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after negotiations with the Crown.  The client was charged with having assaulted her boyfriend during a heated argument about their relationship. The boyfriend did sustain injuries.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  He sent the client to therapy with an expert in domestic violence and asked the client to complete community service.  A report was provided to the Crown along with the letter of community service.  After two pre-trials with the Crown, an agreement was reached to withdraw the charge and the client would sign a common law peace bond.  Accordingly, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.

 

Regina v. K.W. (2019)

Client acquitted after an eight day jury trial in Toronto, Superior Court, of charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Weapons Dangerous, Use Imitation Firearm, Assault Causing Bodily Harm.   The client was in a one year relationship and in November of 2016 he moved in with his girlfriend, one of the complainants.  K.W. left for China in December to visit family and while away complainant number one sent text messages breaking up with him and telling him that she has packed all of his belongings and place them in his car.  This happened to have included a bb gun.  When K.W. arrived home he had discovered that she had removed $6,000.00 from his account.  K.W. went to confront his girlfriend and she did not want to speak.  He left but then returned about half an hour later after she contacted him about their cat.  He returned and was confronted by her new boyfriend.  A fight broke out and police were eventually called and the client was charged with several offences.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  K.W. was initially charged with use firearm, however, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired an expert, and established that the projectile speed was less than that found by the police expert and the charge was down graded to imitation firearm.  Further, a defence investigator was hired to take additional statements.  Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a preliminary hearing and cross-examined the two complainants in a manner toward developing the defence. It was very help and then in preparation for trial spend considerable time preparing the client to testify and drafting the cross-examinations of all of the Crown witnesses.  After two days of deliberations, the jury found K.W. not guilty on all charges, including Domestic Assault, Assault with Weapon, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Use Imitation Firearm and Weapons Dangerous.

 

Regina v. A.S. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto.  A.S. was ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The two had been living together for a short period of time.  The complainant still maintained her own apartment.  An argument erupted over why the relationship was ending and when A.S. requested the complainant to leave his apartment, she refused and a pushing match commenced.  The complainant called police and A.S. was charged with two counts of Assault and Mischief to her cell phone.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend A.S.  When Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure including the statement of the complainant and police officer notes, there was inconsistency between the description of the two assaults and the complete lack of any injury and damage to clothing.  The cell phone was intact as well.  Several pre-trials were held and A.S. agreed to take a course of counselling directed at conflict resolution and after successful completion of the course, the charges were withdrawn and A.S. signed a common law peace bond.

 

Regina v. M.C. (2019)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn on eve of second set of motions for records of the complainant’s psychiatric records.  M.C. met the complainant on the dating site Plenty of Fish. The two engaged in highly suggestive messaging and then arranged to meet for an intimate encounter.  M.C. attended the complainant’s residence and engaged in relations.  After, the complainant became angry at M.C. and then later called police and he was charged with sexual assault.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with the disclosure, and the client reviewing the events.  In addition, he obtained the text messages between the parties, that were extremely helpful for cross-examination.  However, just prior to the first trial date, the complainant made several posts on social media that raised significant issues regarding her mental at the time of the alleged offence.  A private investigator was hired to do a complete social media investigation with a tech expert and as a result the defence brought a third party records motion for her psychiatric records. The motion was adjourned as was the original trial date.  A second Application was filed for the records and just prior to the hearing of the applications the charge was withdrawn. Some of the mental health issues were relevant as they related to perception but also to issues of manipulation by the complainant.  As a result the complainant did not want to participate in the trial anymore and the Crown withdrew the charges.

 

R v. Y. X. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates in Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. A verbal argument escalated into a physical altercation at traffic court. The altercation was observed by police officers at a traffic courthouse and Y.X. was arrested for domestic assault on the spot. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained as his criminal defence lawyer to represent Y.X. on the charge. Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and uncovered a number of issues with the evidence against the client including potential violation of constitutional right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The client was not provided a Mandarin interpret at the police station and could not fully appreciate the rights being explained to her. After an extensive pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko convinced the Crown that only one hour of counseling was required before the charge was to be withdrawn. After a completion of brief counseling, the charge was formally withdrawn.

R. v. L.G. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after several pre-trials with the prosecutor in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The complainant, L.G.’s wife, was upset with L.G. for smoking inside the house. They had an argument and L.G allegedly pushed the complainant to the floor. The complainant tried to get up, however, L.G. kept pushing her so that she would stay down. The complainant also indicated to the prosecutor assigned to this matter that she was tortured and tormented by L.G. throughout many years and that she wanted to proceed to a trial. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained by the client on this matter. Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the persecutor including face to face meetings and conversations at the courthouse. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge against L.G upon him entering into a common law peace bond. No volunteer work or counseling was required. L.G. attended Scarborough courthouse with Mariya and upon entering into a common law peace bond, his charge was

 

Regina v. C.J. and A.J.C. (2019)

Charges of Assault and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  C.J. and A.J.C. were driving together and there was a road incident with another car that then followed them to a mall parking lot.  Once out of the cars an argument ensued and a physical altercation.  Part of the altercation was captured by video surveillance from local stores.   Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete were retained as the defence lawyers.  After a careful review of the surveillance, there were some frames that were enhanced by the defence which appeared to show the complainant making gestures prior to the physical altercation that could be viewed as assaultive and there could be an argument for self-defence on top of the fact that the complainant had followed C.J, and A.J.C. to the parking lot.  After two judicial pre-trials, an agreement was reached for all parties to take some anger management counseling related to road rage and at the end of the therapy it was agreed all charges would be withdrawn.  Once the therapy was completed the charges were formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. M.Y. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown.  The complainant and M.Y. were in the midst of a separation.  An argument erupted over an issue about support.  The complainant called police and alleged that M.Y. had pushed her and grabbed her.  M.Y. was arrested, and ordered to have no contact and not return to the home.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  During the course of the criminal proceeding, the complainant wrote to the Crown that she wished to reconcile and have marriage counselling.  This was communicated to Joseph Neuberger.  Joseph Neuberger spoke with his client and he was in favour of marriage counselling and reconciliation.  Joseph Neuberger had several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney and worked out a therapy program for M.Y. that would then turn into marriage counselling. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after M.Y. completed 12 sessions successfully.  This was done, and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.C. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown.  J.C. was charged by his soon to be former wife with domestic violence allegations arising from an argument over separation. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer.  Once disclosure was received and thoroughly reviewed, it became apparent that the purported assault would have resulted in severe injuries yet, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met on three occasions with the assigned Crown and negotiated a withdrawal if the client completed a program of anger management and conflict management therapy.  After successful completion, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. G.L. (2019)

Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn prior to trial.  G.L. was alleged to have been highly intoxicated at a bar and was involved in a fight that resulted in some injury to the complainant and damage to the bar.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger sought the video surveillance from inside the bar, and even though the surveillance video was not the best quality, it appeared that G.L. was attacked first due to some verbal argument.  Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for alcohol abuse therapy and tendered the report and the surveillance video to the Crown.  After a fruitful pre-trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. H.B. (2019)

Client found not guilty after two day trial in Newmarket, Ontario Court of Justice, of charges of Luring x 4, and Communicating to obtain the sexual services of a minor x 2, all arising from the police project Raphael.   H.B. was 52 years of age at the time and had looked at the backpages for an escort.  He eventually made arrangements to meet two service providers at a hotel and was arrested as it was alleged that he was communicating with an undercover officer pretending to be a 14 year old escort.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  When Joseph Neuberger took over the file, an extensive meeting with the client yielded information about issues with the client’s phone and he having contacted other service providers.  The police provided in disclosure only the texts messages between the undercover and Mr. H.R. The cell phone extraction report from the police similarly only had messages between H.R. and the undercover officer.  Joseph Neuberger sought an Order releasing the seized phone to the defence to have it forensically reviewed by the defence expert.  The defence expert provided an extraction report that included all other calls and messages between H.R. and other service providers and demonstrated that some messages were truncated and not clear.  The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the defence expert material and also prepared a Compilation Report that included all communications over a two hour period to provide full context to the communications with the undercover officer.  The evidence established that H.R. was confused between two numbers both having area codes of 289 one of which was the undercover officer.  There were numerous messages and it was not a simple back and forth between the officer and H.R. but rather extended well over one hour and 34 minutes.  Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger spent over 70 hours with H.R. preparing him to testify.  At trial, the defence extraction report, and the Compilation Report provided strong evidence to support H.R.’s evidence. The court found that H.R.’s evidence, although having its credibility issues, was not unbelievable and thus raised a reasonable doubt that he knew the alleged age of the pretend escort. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all six charges.

R. v. M.T. (2019)

M.T. was originally charged with attempt murder in relation to astabbing incident at a local sports bar and detained in custody. M.T.’s family immediately retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke to the Crown about the defence position of self-defence regarding the incident in order to obtain bail. Shortly after Crown received the video surveillance of the sports bar which confirmed the triable issue of self defence and thereby consented to client’s release and reduced the charge from attempt murder to aggravated assault, utter threat and carry concealed weapon. Mr. Navarrete later conducted a narrow and focused preliminary hearing cross
examining the alleged victim of the stabbing. Ultimately, the matter went to trial by judge and jury in the  Superior Court of Justice located at 361 University Ave. After a two-week trial where the Crown called over 7 witnesses and Mr. Navarrete called M.T. to describe his self-defensive actions, the client was acquitted of aggravated assault and carry a concealed weapon by the jury and only convicted for uttering a threat. The
client received a conditional discharge as his sentence for that charge.

R. v. R.C. (2019)

R.C. was charged with assault (X4), forcible confinement, sexual assault and breach of probation against his “on and off” again girlfriend. It was alleged that R.C. bound up his girlfriend and held her against her will for over 5 hours, sexually assaulted her and physically hit her. R.C. initially retained Christopher Assie to represent him on this charge and various other related charges involving the same complainant. Mr. Assie conducted a thorough and clinical preliminary inquiry involving cross examining the complainant on various text messages and Facebook postings. R.C.’s matter then was elevated to the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave
where a one-week trial took place before a judge alone with Mr. John Navarrete as his counsel. Mr. Assie and Mr. Navarrete worked collaboratively to ensure that key points of the preliminary inquiry were raised at trial for the benefit of the client. Mr. Navarrete cross examined the complainant on the various postings and text messages and various other issues and met with the client in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre on several occasions to ensure that he was properly prepared to testify at his own trial. The jury found R.C. not guilty on all charges.

Regina v. N.O. (2019)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  N.O. had met the complainant on Ashley Madison and started an intimate relationship.  On one night the complainant alleged an act occurred during their sexual encounter where she withdrew consent but all other contact was consensual.  N.O. hired Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client over 300 messages before and after the alleged sexual assault that provided an extremely rich foundation for cross-examination of the complainant including her intention to meet up with N.O. that night to get drunk and high and forget the evening which went directly to her reliability as a witness. Other messages showed animus after the alleged event due to her financial situation and a friend who also attended the evening and trashed her car.  At trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant and established key inconsistencies and issues related to her reliability. Joseph Neuberger and his team spent considerable time preparing N.O. for his testimony.  At the end of the trial N.O.’a evidence was sufficient to raise more than a reasonable doubt on the main issue and as such N.O. was acquitted of the charge.

Regina v. F.L. (2019)

Charge of assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket, after extensive discussions with the Crown.  F.L. was involved in an altercation during his son’s soccer game where a major physical dispute broke out.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  After obtaining disclosure, it was astonishing that the only statements taken were from the team of the complainant and the family of the complainant’s.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation gathering other statements and eventually disclosed the statements to the Crown.  The Crown determined that there was not reasonable prospect of conviction.  As such the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. H.D. (2019)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial date.  H.D. was in the midst of a highly contentious separation and in order to remove him from the matrimonial home, the complainant made a allegation of domestic assault.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  After reviewing the statement of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger drafted a memo on the massive inconsistencies and implausibility of the allegations and disclosed the memo to the Crown.  After discussions with the Crown, the charge was withdrawn and the client entered into a common law peace bond.

Regina v. A.K. (2019)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial after two days of cross examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant.  A.K. was alleged over several years to have sexually abused young lady who came to his house for many years and was friends with A.K.’s children.  Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Mariya Protsenko, were retained as the defence team.   Detailed interviews were done with all family members and then detailed preparation of them for testimony.  Joseph Neuberger meticulously dissected the statement of the complainant in constructing his cross-examination of the complainant.  At trial Joseph Neuberger exposed the implausibility of many of the allegations, the vagueness of the allegations and drew out numerous inconsistencies in addition to establishing that by day two of the cross the complainant had been coached on how to answer questions.  After the cross examination, the Crown took the position that the evidence of the complainant no longer was capable of supporting a reasonable prospect of conviction and as such all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. F.Z. (2019)

Client acquitted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket of Domestic Assault.  F.Z. had an argument with the complainant regarding his belief that she was unfaithful to him.  The complainant alleged that F.Z. had pushed her down onto a bed and choked her for at least 10 minutes.  During the altercation, F.Z. sustained a serious tear to his groin area requiring 12 stitches.  F.Z. called police but was charged.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger, Paralegal Grace Condello and senior clerk Daisy Zhang conducted extensive client interviews and obtained the client’s medical records related to the injuries he sustained including a bite mark to his finger, and pictures of the injuries.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger referred the client to a family lawyer as the complainant had applied for divorce and immediately sought sole custody of their two children.  Detailed review of the evidence of the complainant was conducted, including the photographs of her injuries.  The injuries showed only a scratch to on side of her neck, abrasions to her right clavical and a swollen right eye.  Extensive time was spent with the client preparing him for trial.  In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the family lawyer the Family Court pleadings.  At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on her motivation to seek sole custody and that obtaining a conviction in the criminal case would help her with obtaining sole custody, thus illuminating a motive to fabricate.  Further, detailed cross-examination of the alleged sequence of the alleged assault was reviewed and the complainant could not or would not explain her injuries as they did not correlate with the manner in which she described the assault.  Under cross-examination there were other crucial admissions from the complainant that undermined her reliability.  F.Z. testified and described that in fact he was attacked and defended himself. The manner of the attack and his defence described matched the injuries of both parties.  After extensive submissions, the defence succeeded and the client was found not guilty.

Regina v. X.L.S. (2019)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault causing bodily harm x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  The client was at a well attended Karaoke bar in Markham when an argument broke out between her friends and another group. A physical altercation occurred and the client was charges with having used a beer bottle to assault two complainants.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  After extensive review of the disclosure and interviews of the security staff at the bar, it was apparent that two male parties were involved in the assault and not X.L.S.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the interviews and related evidence to establish that for an ulterior motive his client was falsely accused.  After extensive pre-trials the Crown agreed that the charges ought to be stayed.

Regina v. C.D. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn in Toronto prior to trial. The client and the complainant were in relationship for two years that was very tumultuous. On the day in question, the complainant kicked C.D. out of the apartment. While packing, the two parties got into an argument. The complainant started to video record C.D. C.D. grabbed at the cell phone, struggled and then threw the phone on the ground. The complainant called 911 and C.D. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. C.D. had a history of mental health issues. Joseph Neuberger retained a therapist to work with the complainant who was also experiencing serious anxiety. A report was tendered to the assigned Crown, and it was agreed that the charge ought to be withdrawn. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina. T.Z. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. T.Z. was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend and held her in their apartment not allowing her to leave during an argument about an alleged affair. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Similar to other cases, the pictures and medical records disclosed by the Crown did not correspond with the manner in which the assault was alleged to have occurred. However, there was significant damage to the apartment. Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger arranged for T.Z. to take therapy, complete community service and pay restitution for damage to property. As a result of the excellent therapy report and deficiencies with the evidence of the complainant the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.M. (2019)

Charges of Threatening Death and Cruelty to Animal withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having threatened to kill his spouse during an argument. His former spouse also claimed that T.M. had killed her dog by kicking it to death. She claimed that T.M. had confessed to the crime. T.M. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. Counsel conducted a judicial pre-trial and ultimately scheduled a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, counsel had provided the Crown with evidence that the complainant had recanted her testimony and pointed that the evidence that the Crown wished to introduce regarding the bad character evidence of T.M. was inadmissible. Prior to the trial date, the Crown re-assessed the reasonable prospect of conviction in light of the new evidence they had and they simply withdrew the charges.

Regina v. D.A. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. D.A. was charged with assaulting a teenager at a gym. D.A. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. After reviewing the disclosure and conducting several meetings with a Crown, Mr. Assié convinced the Crown to withdraw the charges in exchange for the D.A. entering into a peace bond.

Regina v. N.R. (2019)

N.R. was charged with domestic assault and uttering threat against his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. N.R. had gone to pick up his son at his ex-girlfriend’s house as part of family law access rights. When he arrived, it is alleged that he threatened the new boyfriend, and a physical argument ensued involving N.R., and his ex-girlfriend in front of his son. After several discussions between Mr. John Navarrete and the Crown Attorney`s office at 2201Finch Ave West about the inconsistencies in the complainant`s police statement and issues of credibility, the Crown decided to withdraw the charge against the accused upon successful completion of the PAR program by N.R. and his signing of a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. T.C. (2019)

T.C. was charged with assault against his wife after they had a public argument at a café. T.C. and his wife had been having various family issues including financial and extended family problems. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown Pre-trials and Judicial Pre-trials with the Crown Attorney`s office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete realizing that this was a strong Crown case given that it was witnessed by the public, embarked on a strategy that would demonstrate to the Crown that T.C. was not a public threat. This strategy included counselling among other things. Ultimately, the Crown withdrew the charges against T.C. and the client signed a section 810 peace bond.

Regina v. K.L. (2019)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in Newmarket Court.  K.L. was charged with having grabbed and pushed his wife into their car.  A witness alleged that he heard her screaming and being forcibly pushed into the car.  Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained as defence lawyers.  After receiving the disclosure, it became clear that the wife did not cooperate with police and the prosecution was based on the witness’ observations.  A statement was taken from the wife who stated that all physical contact was with her consent. The statement was provided to the Crown.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial with the Crown and advised the Crown that thers is no assault if the wife consented to the contact. In law to prove an assault there must be non-consensual touching. As such, persons can consent to touching so long as it does not result in bodily harm. Thus, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. X.M. (2019)

Three counts of domestic assault withdrawn in Newmarket court.  The client was alleged to have engaged in an argument with his girlfriend that became physical.  The complainant called police and alleged domestic abuse including being grabbed, hit and pushed down on the floor over the course of a ten minute altercation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend X.M. After reviewing the disclosure, it became apparent that the manner as described by the complainant of the assaults did not match the fact that the complaintant had absolutely no visible injury.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger entered into extensive discussions with the Crown.  Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for private counseling after which all charges were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.

Regina v. A.S. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Interference and Sexual Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. A.S. was 71 years of age at the time he was accused of hugging and touching a 12 year old girl in an elevator. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired to defend Mr. A.S. Joseph Neuberger watched the video surveillance and carefully read the complaint’s statement. A couple of comments allegedly said by A.S. to the complainant concerned Joseph Neuberger about a possible cognitive issue as a reason for the allged offence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist to assess A.S. A CT scan was carried out and after a detailed assessment there was a real issue of really dementia. After disclosing the Assessment reports and extensive negotiations it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn and the client to sign a common law peace bond. As such all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. C.M. (2018)

Client charged with Sexual Assault involving a female friend on New Year’s Eve at the complainant’s residence while her parents were home. C.M. retained Mr. John Navarrete as his lawyer. At trial, Mr. Navarrete embarked on an extensive cross-examination of the complainant at trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 1000 Finch Ave West. Mr. Navarrete established that the relationship included ‘casual sex’ among friends, that the complainant had asked her father to drive the client home after the alleged sexual assault, that the complainant had made the client breakfast after the alleged sexual assault, and that the complainant never mentioned anything to her parents or sought immediate help. In addition, despite the complainant’s testimony that she was afraid of the complainant after the alleged sexual assault, she in fact went shopping with him a month later and they took selfies of themselves “playing and hanging out” at her parent’s home. Ultimately, the trial judge found C.M. not guilty as the aforementioned evidence along with the client’s testimony of consent raised a reasonable doubt.

Regina v. S.I. & S.D. (2018)

The two clients were charged with Assault and Assault with a Weapon on the same complainant. All three parties were roommates. The complainant claimed that on two separate occasions, both accused had assaulted him and hit him with a broom. Both clients retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. It was clear to counsel from reviewing the complainant’s statement to the police that there was more to the complainant’s story. Counsel discovered that there a total of 9 people living in the house where the assaults allegedly occurred. Counsel conducted a defence investigation and interviewed several of the other roommates. The roommates provided very different accounts of how the altercations arose. Furthermore, they were able to describe other very serious and dangerous behaviour that the complainant had engaged in – including threatening the clients with a knife. Counsel had three roommates provide Affidavits describing what they witnessed during the alleged incidents. Counsel disclosed the Affidavits to the Crown and convinced the Crown to simply withdraw the charges in exchange for peace bonds.

Regina v. G.J. (2018)

Charges of criminal harassment with drawn. Client was alleged with stalking his neighbour. The client vehemently denied the behaviour described by the complainant. The client hired Christopher Assie as his defence lawyer at Neuberger & Partners LLP. Given the unreasonableness of the complainant in this case and the fact that they were neighbours, counsel suggested that even if the Crown offered a peace bond, that this is one of those rare instances where the accused should not consider agreeing. By entering into a peace bond, it would provide the complainant with an ability to have the client charged with breaching the peace bond upon a flimsy pretext. After multiple Crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials, the Crown finally agreed that the matter was not in the public interest to pursue. The charges were withdrawn. Client did not have to enter into a peace bond.

Regina v. R.K. (2018)

Charges of Utter Threats and Domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and R.K. were married and had one child together. The two divorced several years ago and R.K. was the primary caregiver for their child. There years of conflict between the two ensued after the divorce. During a drop off of the child the complainant and R.K. got into an argument about R.K. going on a trip with their child. When he left, the complainant called police alleging he assaulted and threatened her. R.K. was charged. He was then placed on bail and had difficulty with access to the child. The complainant immediately changed the school for the child and hired a family lawyer to restrict his parenting time even though since divorce he was the primary parent and not a hint of any issue about his parenting. R.K. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure, had the complaint’s statement transcribed and then interviewed R.K. CAS wanted to meet with R.K. and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the meeting. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the statement of the complainant with the CAS worker and established that this looked like a fabricated story to gain custody of the child. CAS assisted with getting access going. Joseph Neuberger provided the report from CAS to the crown and reviewed the evidence including the correspondence from the family lawyers with the Crown. After two pre-trial meetings the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that this was a fabrication to gain custody. As a result the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. X.P. (2018)

Charge of Possession of Prohibited Weapon withdrawn. The client was fishing when the OPP stopped his boat for a routine check for fishing quotas. During a search of the boat a taser device was seized and X.P. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After reviewing the notes of the officers Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and advised the Crown of a violation of X.P.’s Charter right to be free from an unreasonable search. The client was obligated to sumbit to his boat being boarded by police for the fishing quota compliance but as this was compelled by Provincial law, anything beyond a search for fish was unlawful. As a result X.P.’s rights were violated. The taser was forfeited and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. J.O. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn in Superior Court Barrie after the preliminary hearing. The client was at the Wayhome festival in the summer of 2016 with a group of his friends. After a performance a young lady with two acquaintances came to his campsite. They were invited to sit down and join his group for drinks. After a while the young lady began conversing with J.O. and the two soon left the actual site and were seen kissing and going into his tent. After some time the young lady left. Apparently the young lady was rather intoxicated and went to another campsite. After being at this second site she fell asleep and woke up around 5 am. She then somehow found her way to her own campsite and fell asleep in a van. The next morning when panicked that she could not find her purse she said she thought she was sexually assaulted. Mr. J.O. was eventually identified and was charged with sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all persons interviewed and just spoken to by police. All statements were transcribed and other witnesses interviewed by the defence team. The Crown alleged that the complaint was too drunk to have consented to any sexual contact and as such she lacked the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger created a chart and timeline of all persons who had contact with the complainant and requested a preliminary hearing during which all witnesses would be called and examined. The Crown resisted and wanted only the complainant to be called. After a number of contested court appearances an agreement was reached that all witnesses would be called for Joseph Neuberger to cross-examine or examine. At the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant extensively about her activities before and after her encounter with J.O. including her drinking pattern, how she walked to the campite, spoke in a pretend British accent and made up a story about her life in addition to her own research on “capacity to consent”. It appeared that the complaintant had been reading online that if a female is drunk she cannot consent. Although this is wrong in fact and law it was an interesting area of cross-examination as this erroneous held belief tainted her state of mind and thus evidence about how she behaved and her own actions. Joseph Neuberger called every single other witness in order to have a clear timeline and detail as to the complainant’s condition before and after sex with J.O. and her own actions after the sexual contact. In fact a witness the Crown did not want to call but that was called to testify by Joseph Neuberger was another young woman who did not know the complainant but was able to identify her and state that the complaintant had arrived at her campsite (established to be after having been with Mr. J.O.). This witness stated that the complaintant came to her site and was talking in a British accent and started flirting with one of her male friends including sitting on his lap. There was other relevant evidence but the evidence effectively established that although quite drunk the complainant was walking, talking and even flirting after having been with J.O. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant about her “flash backs” and established that she could not recall if in fact she consented to sex before having actual physical contact or during but had really suffered a black out. A black out does not mean a person is passed out but merely suffers memory loss as a result of the quantity of alcohol consumed. Thus, after the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger urged the head Crown Attorney to carefully review the preliminary hearing transcripts with a view to reasonable prospect of conviction. After a fair review the Crown conceded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket. M.S. was travelling on public transit when he sat down beside a female passenger. The female passenger felt M.S.’ hand touch her rear area for a few moments. As she got up to change seats, the complainant felt a grab of her rear area. She reported the incident and M.S. was charged with sexual assault. M.S. was interviewed and gave a somewhat inculpatory statement. M.S. did not retain Joseph Neuberger as his defence counsel until two years into the case. He had two previous counsel. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the evidence, and had extensive interviews with the client and his parents. M.S. was previously diagnosed with a form of Autism. Mr. Neuberger had the client undergo a psychological and psychiatric assessment to determine not only the diagnosis, but also his functional baseline in relation to the admissibility of his statement and other symptoms of his diagnosis that may have impacted on his conduct at the relevant time. The results determined that the diagnosis was still relevant and he was functioning below his age. In addition, M.S. has an unconscious habit of fidgeting and placing his hands under his legs when seated. Joseph Neuberger broke down the video surveillance from the public transit, and in fact the alleged touch while seated could in fact have been a result of this unconscious movement. The other alleged touching was not consistent with the video. Joseph Neuberger then disclosed the report, the chart and met with the Crown about the evidence at which time it was agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.J. (2018)

Domestic related charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 4, Assault with a Weapon, Threaten Death and Cruelty to an Animal, all withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. S.J. was in the midst of a separation and a custody battle regarding the complainant and their son. After the commencement of divorce proceedings the complainant went to police and made a number of historical claims of abuse. S.J. was charged. There were three statements from the complainant and some evidence from her father to support her allegations. Joseph Neuberger was eventually retained by the client after his first counsel recommended a guilty plea. Joseph Neuberger and his partner Grace Condello took over the file and interviewed the client extensively. Family court documents were obtained, as well as emails and messages exchanged between the complainant and S.J. leading up to the charges. There were serious financial issues at stake including a $100,000 loan made by S.J. to the father of the complainant. After extensive file investigation, Joseph Neuberger arranged a meeting with the Crown and disclosed various source documents that would have seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. The Crown agreed in light of the defence material, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were thus withdrawn.

Regina v. D.M. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Utter Threats withdrawn after extensive cross-examination of the complainant at trial. D.M. was in a short two month relationship with the complainant. D.M. had suspicions that the complainant had gone to Niagara Falls with another person and that she was having multiple relationships. My client attended her home and found out that in fact he was correct. An argument ensued and D.M. made a threat about intimate pictures. D.M. left but the complainant called police a week later. While in the police station the complainant alleged that throughout the relationship, he beat her and forced sex on her. The Crown was seeking five to six years. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. A great deal of time was spent with the client obtaining WeChat messages up to and including the date of the offence and after. It established the complainant had sought compensation or she was go to the police. The compensation was for some damage he caused during their argument and his threat about the pictures. D.M. would not pay $5,000.00 and the complainant indeed went to the police. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello, paralegal in the firm, worked on a breakdown of the complainant’s statement in step with all of the messages obtained. At trial, the complainant expanded her allegations to over 20 sexual assaults. Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined the complainant about each allegation and established the falsehoods in each and then put to the complainant a series of pictures and messages throughout the relationship that established a loving and respectful relationship save and except for the fact that the complainant carried on a secret relationship. After several hours of cross-examination, the Crown agreed to withdraw at trial.

Regina v. F.H. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. F.H. who was in the midst of an ongoing high conflict relationship with her former husband had sole custody of their daughter but during a weekend with the father, there was an alleged complaint of abuse. F.H. was charged with assault. F.H. retained Joseph Neuberger as her defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had all statements transcribed. The transcripts were reviewed in conjunction with the video statement of the child complainant and it became fairly clear that during the interview with police and the CAS worker, the child was confused and was using “mom” to refer to another family member as she felt close to that family member like a mother. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the statement and a chart breaking down the statement to expose the errors. In addition, the defence obtain statements from the child’s family physician and teachers about not ever seeing any hint of physical or emotional abuse but to the contrary when seeing the child and F.H. together, there was an observed close bonded relationship. After extensive discussions with the Crown and review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Q.L. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Q.L, a prominent Real Estate Broker, had become involved with a lady who he business dealings with. One night the two were intimate. The next afternoon, after they had lunch, the complainant attended a police station and made a complaint of sexual assault. Q.L. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the allegations. Joseph Neuberger obtained the statement of the complainant, transcribed it, and then broke it down in time frames to analyze the actions of the complainant. In addition, the smart phone of the client was sent to the defence expert to retrieve messaging between the complainant and Q.L. prior and then after the alleged assault. Sometime later, after a three day trial was set, the complainant started calling Q.L. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had an investigator meet with Q.L. and set up recording devices to monitor and record the calls. The complainant kept calling and all discussions were recorded. The discussions were in Mandarin and Criminal Lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent the recordings to a certified translation service for certified transcription and translation. During the course of additional judicial pre-trials, an arrangement was made to disclose the defence evidence, on a without prejudice basis for an assessment of the prospects of conviction. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and in fact Q.L. was innocent. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Z.C. (2018)

Client found not guilty after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement and Utter Threat. Client got married at 19 to a young lady also 19 who was a Visa student. The marriage was primarily for helping the young lady get status in Canada, but the two came to have affection for each other. However, early on into the relationship Z.C. was discovered to be cheating and this caused a series of high conflict arguments and must turmoil over a six month period of the marriage. At the end of six months, the two separated. In October of 2016, the complainant attended Z.C.’s home and smashed his car. While Z.C. was following her back to her residence (the two had separated), police were called and the complainant alleged the Z.C. had committed two very serious sexual assaults, and a host of other serious offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. There was a team placed on the file with Daisy Zhang, a senior law clerk and a senior paralegal Grace. A large volume of evidence was obtained including two statements; messages and letters as well as statements from alleged witnesses. The case eventually went to trial. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team obtained undisclosed messages sent by the complainant to Z.C. and monitored various social media forums in which the complainant was posting material that showed considerable animus about the cheating but nothing about the alleged violence. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively crossed examined the complainant on inconsistencies in her statements in addition put hundreds of messages to the complainant contradicting the sequence of events and the implausibility of events. In addition, during the trial, the complainant continued to post on social media, and on the second day or cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger put to the complainant several posts that were highly aggressive in relation to Z.C. and showed a possible fabrication of a letter that she said the complainant wrote. The complainant initially lied about the social media posts, but under continued cross-examination with more posts being shown to the complainant, she relented and admitted the posts. The complainant alleged however that Z.C. had hacked into her account to manipulate the posts and other messages, but the defence expert was able to show that this allegation was false. By the end of the trial, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to convict Z.C. of the Sexual and other charges. The client was found not guilty.

Regina v S.W. (2018)

Charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with a Weapon, and Assault withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant boyfriend of S.W. was attacked by S.W. with a knife and sustained serious head injuries. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After review of the statements and interviews with the client, the situation arose from a very heated argument. It became apparent that S.W. became fearful of being attacked by the complainant and proactively obtained a knife to remove the complainant from the apartment. In addition, both parties had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. Joseph Neuberger had the complainant assessment by a therapist and a forensic psychiatrist. The reports suggested a situational psychosis of being attacked by the complainant. After months of therapy and further risk assessment, all defence reports were turned over to the Crown. The Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that there was a viable defence and that S.W. had done extensive therapy to address alcohol misuse and to demonstrate no risk. As such, all charges were withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond that would be in effect for 6 months.

Regina v. M.A. (2018)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon x 2 and Utter Threats x 2 withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.A.’ daughter apparently was not following her mother’s rules for the house and after an argument, while at school, the complainant made allegations against M.A. M.A. self-represented herself and wound up setting a trial. After CAS warned M.A. about her losing access to her daughter, M.A. retained Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges. Mr Neuberger reviewed the evidence, conducted a pre-trial and spoke with CAS. He then amended the bail to allow M.A. and her daugheter to enter into joint therapy. After four months of therapy and a very positive report, the Crown agreed that a “child” focused approach is far better than a trial. As such Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. M.M. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault with a Weapon x 2 and Utter Threat x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney Newmarket. M.M. was dating a lady about 25 years younger for about six months. The two had a child together and during the course of living together allegations of domestic violence were made by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was retained as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure, had all statements transcribed and then attended the home to view the scene. The description of the alleged assault with a weapon was not plausible given the layout of the room the complainant alleged the two assaults took place. Mr. Neuberger photographed the room and hallway. Then an interview was conducted of the client’s mother how was home during the incident. Joseph Neuberger turned over the defence evidence to the Crown and conducted a number of pre-trials. In the interim, Mr. Neuberger had the client complete an anger management program privately and furnished the Crown with a copy of the report. After further discussions with the Crown, an agreement was reached to withdraw all charges in favour of the client signing a peace bond.

Regina v. K.L. (2018)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Use Imitation Firearm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was charged with having been involved in a road-rage incident. After stopping his vehicle, he allegedly got out, punched the complainant in the head and pulled out a gun. The client retained Christopher Assie as his defence counsel at Neuberger & Partners. After reviewing the disclosure thoroughly, counsel had a number of discussions with the Crown and pointed all of the weaknesses in the case – the most important being that the Crown could not positively prove that the accused was the assailant. The Crown withdrew the charges in exchange for a peace bond. The client was a foreign student and any conviction for the offences would have led to his immediate deportation.

Regina v. T.S. (2018)

Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn after first day of trial. The client was a tow-truck operator. He was alleged to have had an argument with another fellow tow-truck driver. One night, he came across the complainant who was waiting for calls. The accused was alleged to have attacked the complainant and then proceeded to damage the two-truck. The client retained Christopher Assie. After cross-examining the complainant for a day, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the charges if the accused entered into a peace bond promising to stay away from the complainant. The second prosecution witness had not even testified. The client elected to enter into the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.L. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client involved in a fender-bender. The client got out to discuss with the other driver the accident and exchange insurance information. The client believed that the complainant was going to leave the scene and a scuffle ensued. The complainant suffered a number of injuries and the client was charged with assault when the police arrived. The client hired criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie of Neuberger and Partners. Defence Counsel was able to put together a package of material and convince the Crown to withdraw the charge in exchange for a peace bond.

Regina v. D.X (2018)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after one day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Mr. D.X. was alleged to have targeted a young lady at a University library and touching her in a sexual manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After extensive investigation by the defence, more information came to light including the two persons had met on two prior occasions at the library and had extensive conversations about work and life. This was thus not a stranger to Mr. D.X. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with the client to prepare him for his testimony at trial. Mr. D.X. in fact stated that they had spoken at length and on the day of the alleged sexual assault he states that he was propositioned to be a sugar daddy to the complainant and an argument ensued. At trial and under cross examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant conceded two prior meetings with the client at the library where they discussed a wide range of topics about work, personal life and her struggles financially. She conceded exchanges names and saying she hoped to see my client again. These admissions under cross-examination were critical to undermining her story about this being a complete stranger. In addition under cross examination the complainant made up two other allegations of touching that were not in her video statement. Joseph Neuberger has all witness statements transcribed and was able to critically cross-examine the complainant and establish material inconsistencies. In the defence case, D.X. testified in a detailed believable manner. At the end of the trial the judge determined that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt had not been achieved and the client was found not guilty. This case demonstrates the importance of extensive trial preparation with a client and skillful cross-examination in a climate where complainants are being presumptively believed about sexual assault allegations.

Regina v. K.H. (2018)

K.H. was charged with a sexual assault in a workplace incident. K.H. was a real estate broker and the complainant in this matter was office staff. After several discussions between John Navarrete and the Crown Attorney`s office at 1000 Finch Ave West about the inconsistencies in the complainant`s police statement and an email sent to her boss about the incident, the Crown decided to withdraw the charge against the accused on the day of trial. K.H. also signed a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. J.L. (2018)

J.L. was charged with assault after he was allegedly involved in a fight at a Karaoke Bar in Markham, Ontario. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown Pre-trials and Judicial Pre-trials with the Crown Attorney`s office in Newmarket, the Crown withdrew the charges against J.L. The client also signed a section 810 peace bond. Mr. Navarrete raised the issues of missing disclosure including a lost evidence application involving the missing surveillance tape taken at the Karoake bar on the night of the alleged incident.

R. v. G. D. (2018)

G.D. was charged with sexual assault (X2) and Indecent Act for an alleged incident at the workplace. After a judge alone trial at the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave, G.D. was acquitted of all the charges. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate a great deal of significant inconsistencies between the complainant`s version of events between her testimony at the preliminary inquiry, her statement of claim, her police report and her testimony at trial via a persistent cross examination of her.

R. v. S.G. (2018)

S.G. was originally charged with over 300 counts of Break and Enter, several counts of possession of burglar tools and possession of stolen property and dangerous driving. After the preliminary inquiry in Newmarket, S.G. was discharged of all the Break and Enter charges and only had 7 counts remaining. S.G. was able to plead guilty to one count of possession of stolen property in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket for a suspended sentence despite a long criminal record. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated through his cross examination at the preliminary inquiry the frailties of the police officers’ evidence dealing with their arrest of S.G., and that many of the items claimed by the victim’s to be in the possession of S.G. was simply unreliable. Mr. Navarrete also raised issues with the Crown Attorney of an illegal search of S.G.`s vehicle and how a routine traffic stop turned into a criminal investigation without any basis for their search and stop. In addition, Mr. Navarrete raised the spectre of an 11(b) argument for delay which resulted in a reasonable resolution.

Regina v. P.A. (2018)

Charges of Utter Death Threats x 3 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. P.A. was in the midst of separation from his wife. During three separate arguments, the complainant recorded P.A. making threats. The complainant went to police and P.A. was charged. At the same time, the complainant retained family law counsel and filed an application for sole custody of their one child. Joseph Neuberger was retained as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger obtained the recordings and transcribed them. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also obtained medical records of P.A. that demonstrated around the timing of the impugned arguments, P.A. had been sleep deprived, and suffering extreme anxiety. P.A. was sent to a forensic social worker for assessment and therapy. After extensive therapy, a report was furnished to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all charges in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.D. (2018)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. H.D. was charged with having assaulted his common law spouse during an argument when she had hid his cell phone and would not return it. During a struggle over her phone, the complainant called police. H.D. was arrested and accused of damaging the complainant’s phone and head butting her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After receiving and reviewing disclosure, Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown Attorney and negotiated a withdrawal. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial. J.L. was alleged to have been involved in an altercation with another patron at a bar. J.L. allegedly struck and injured the complainant. Defence lawyer John Navarrete was retained. After reviewing disclosure and obtaining a copy of the bar’s internal security recordings, Defence lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that in fact the complainant was the aggressor. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. B.W. (2018)

Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having assaulted his former girlfriend and fractured her right orbital bone during the course of a verbal argument. B.W. retained Joseph Neuberger as defence counsel. After obtaining the statement of the complainant and the medical evidence, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to assess the report and x-rays of the alleged injury. The evidence suggested that in fact the complainant had attacked B.W. first and B.W. responded by reaction with a slap. The Defence medical report showed that the fracture was minor and could have been caused by a hard slap. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also obtained text messages from the complainant, post the alleged offence, apologizing and wanting contact with B.W. These were translated from Mandarin to English and provided to the Crown with a defence book of authorities on self-defence. After extensive discussions with the assigned Crown Attorney, the Crown withdrew the charge as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.W. (2018)

After having successfully appealed a conviction for Assault causing bodily harm, and having a new trial ordered, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown Attorney and it was determined that the charge against J.W. ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, J.W. was found not guilty.

Regina v. S.L. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Gang Sexual Assault, Obstruct Justice and Fail to Comply with Release Order, withdrawn after commencement of the preliminary hearing. S.L. was hosting a poker event. A female attended with her friend and engaged in drinking and partying. The complainant female allegedly fell asleep and woke up the next morning not remembering what had happened. The complainant left the apartment and called police and alleged that she was sexually assaulted by at least two persons at the poker party. S.L. was arrested and charged. After being charged, the complainant further alleged that S.L. called her from a friend’s phone and offered money to resolve the issue privately. S.L. was charged with further offences. Then after the arrest a DNA warrant was executed and a fraction of a sperm cell was found inside the mouth of the complainant linked to S.L. There was no other evidence linking S.L. to sexually assaulting the complainant. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger obtained the DNA biology report and was able to establish a theory of innocent transference of the sperm cell. The amount found was quite small and was thus consistent with the defence theory. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no evidence actually liking S.L. to any call wherein S.L. offered money to resolve the file. After the commencement of the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger and the charges were withdrawn in favour of S.L. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. V.B. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn after the third judicial pre-trial and prior to trial. V.B. had been divorced from the complainant for a number of years. The two parties had a custody agreement in place. Just after V.B.’s family lawyer wrote to the complainant about seeking an extension of access time, the complainant attended a police station and alleged a prior sexual assault. V.B. was arrested and up until the time of the withdrawal of the charge, had not been able to see his children. V.B. retained Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed outline and supporting material about the chain of events including requests for increased access, and CAS notes showing no concerns regarding parenting but a high conflict relationship between V.B. and his former wife; the complainant. Just after the complainant made her statement to police, she sought sole custody of the two children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the letter and material for sole custody to the Crown and alleged that the criminal justice system was being used as a means to gain leverage in the family court process. After three judicial pre-trials, the Crown agreed and the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.B. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. M.B. had met a young lady in a group therapy program and began a short relationship. After one night, the complainant contacted police and claimed to have been sexually assaulted. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the complainant’s statement to police and obtained certain records that were relevant to the reliability of the version provided by the complainant. After a series of pre-trials, during which Joseph Neuberger gave defence disclosure of relevant evidence, the Crown eventually agreed to withdraw the charge based upon concerns about reliability and not having a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Z.H. (2018)

Charges of Attempt Sexual Assault, Luring and Procuring withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. During a police operation for under age prostitution, Z.H. was arrested for allegedly procuring the services of a minor and having committed luring and attempt sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Much of the prosecution case relied upon text messages exchanged between the alleged minor and Z.H. Joseph Neuberger had a forensic analysis done of the client’s phone regarding the timing of each message and marshalled an argument about the overlap of messages and that Z.H. would not have seen the alleged message with the age. After negotiations with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.W. (2018)

J.W. was convicted at trial in Scarborough of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after and three day trial and was sentenced to 51 days jail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought bail pending appeal and an appeal with the assistance of Paul Calarco, appellate counsel. The Appeal Court overturned the decision on the basis that the judge misapprehended the evidence. The Appeal Court ordered a new trial.

Regina v. H.W. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket. H.W. had a heated argument with her boyfriend during which the boyfriend contacted police an alleged the assault and damage to his clothing. Defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained as her counsel. After several pre-trials and the client undertaking a private therapy program, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N.K. (2018)

Charges of Importation of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Access Child Pornography all withdrawn prior to trial. N.K. purchased online a blow up Anime doll and two other items. Canadian Border Services intercepted the items and turned them over to Toronto Police who determined that the child size Anime doll and two other items constituted child pornography. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer as well as Mariya Protsenko. After careful review of case law there was no other cases involving Anime cartoon characters. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko began research of Japanese and East Asian pop culture involving Anime characters. An expert was retained by the defence. A professor who had a Ph.d. in Asain culture reviewed the items seized and in particular the Amine doll. The premise was that this type of character is extremely popular in East Asian culture and such items are readily available for sale. Such characters are NOT representative of a child, or adult but have features of human, animal, children and adults and are not to be perceived as a child. In fact, the expert report clearly set out the Asian cultural perspective which noted the doll is not representative of a child. Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials with the assigned Crown and argued that a western centric perspective is inappropriate to assess whether the small seized Anime doll represents a child. Trial dates were set. However, after serving the expert notice and report, as well as a psycho-sexual assessment showing that N.K. demonstrated no preferences for children and had no history of any sexual paraphilias, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges upon the client signing a peace bond.

Regina v. F.J. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial. F.J. was having an argument with his wife regarding an alleged extra marital affair. When F.J. discussed divorce, the argument worsened and police were called by the complainant. F.J. was charged with two counts of domestic assault allegedly having occurred several months prior to this date of the argument. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure. There was no injuries, no reports to third parties such as a doctor and the report to police was made at the time of the breakdown of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents that were subsequently filed by the complainant . The divorce documents highlighted the two alleged incidents of assault but also other unreported incidents. In addition the complainant was seeking an unequal split of the family property and sole custody. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the family court documents and asserted that the allegations were made simply as revenge and to obtain money in the family case and sole custody. Numerous pre-trials were conducted and eventually the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges upon F.J. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. K.K. (2018)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief withdrawn. K.K. was dating the complainant. K.K. tried to end the relationship. A number of arguments erupted over the course of several weeks. During on argument K.K. broke the complainant’s cell phone. The complainant called police and K.K. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After examination of the prosecution evidence, Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials with the assigned Crown. It was apparent that emotions were high during the argument that resulted in the charges however the facts as alleged by the complainant were internally inconsistent. Joseph Neuberger had the client complete a private therapy program about conflict management and pay restitution for the damaged phone. The charges were withdrawn and K.K. signed a common law peace bond.

R. R. (2017)

Charges of Robbery, Forcible Confinement, Assault x 2 withdrawn on the morning of trial. The complainant had alleged that the accused had forced him into his car, beat him, stolen his watch, taken him out of the car and beat him again. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie elected to go straight to trial without having a preliminary inquiry, thus saving the client the additional legal fees. Counsel met with several of accused’s witnesses and prepared them for trial. On the morning of trial, counsel advised the prosecuting Crown of the multiple witnesses that were prepared to testify as to a completely different version of events. After discussions with counsel, the prosecuting Crown realized she had no reasonable prospect of conviction and offered to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond. The client R.R. was happy with the result as it guaranteed that he continued to have no criminal record.

L.C. (2017)

Potential Charges of Possession of Child Pornography and Making Child Pornography Available never laid. The police executed a search warrant on the client’s family home, seizing numerous computers and smart phones. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained by the family and assisted with fending off the investigation.

J.A. (2017)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Mischief to Property, and Failing to Appear in Court dismissed. The complainant and J.A. had been in a long term relationship. During an argument, the complainant alleged that J.A. had assaulted her and broken her cell phone. After being released from custody, J.A. failed to re-attend court. The matter was set down for trial. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie had the client conduct several sessions of counselling, repay the cost of the lost phone, and complete community service hours. The prosecuting Crown agreed to withdraw all charges in exchange for a peace bond. All charges were dismissed.

P.F. (2017)

Charges of Assault and Mischief to Property withdrawn. Complainant alleged that she was assaulted and had her phone thrown away by P.F. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. He provided the prosecutor with photos of damage caused to P.F.’s vehicle prior to the altercation. Charges withdrawn by the Crown after the third court appearance in exchange for P.F. entering into a peace bond. Client continues not to have a criminal record.

Regina v. C.P. (2017)

Charge of Assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions. C.P. had tracked down a group of young boys who he thought were bullying his daughter. When confronted, the boys were upset and a struggle ensued. Police were called by one of the boy’s parents and C.P. was charged with assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and although C.P. had only his daughter’s best interests at heart, there was a better way of handling the situation. C.P. completed five sessions of counselling and the charge was withdrawn. As a note, the boys were spoken to by police about the bullying issue.

Regina v. P.R. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault with Weapon x 2, Assault x 7, Utter Threats and Mischief all withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant and P.R. were in an intimate affair that was discovered by the complainant’s spouse. The affair continued but again was exposed. An argument erupted between the complainant and P.R. that resulted in the spouse of the complainant contacting police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Aside from analyzing all of the statements, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger canvassed a number of social media contacts that materially undermined the evidence of the complainant. After detailed pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, it was determined that the Crown would not proceed with the charges and as such, all charges were stayed.

Regina v. M.H. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Threaten Death, all withdrawn on the eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. M.H. was in a relationship with the complainant. The two were discussing engagement. At some point, a disagreement arose regarding whether the complainant was dating another person. In fact there was another male party and after this was discovered a further argument occurred between the complainant and M.H. After a visit by M.H. with the complainant, a call was made to police by the other boyfriend and then the complainant gave a statement resulting in charges being laid against M.H. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Subsequent to the charges being laid, Joseph Neuberger advised M.H. that in all likelihood the complainant will attempt to make contact. As such, a defence investigation was set up over social media and for calls. Two relevant calls were made, recorded and then transcribed. In addition a number of messages was sent to M.H. The calls and messages were in substance contrary to the statement originally given by the complainant. Just prior to trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger discovered that the other male party was charged with criminal harassment by the same complainant. Joseph Neuberger requested as disclosure the statement in that proceeding. It was further uncovered that the complainant alleged that she was forced to claim sexual assault allegations against M.H. by her other boyfriend. Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown and provided a detailed letter setting out the deficiencies with the complainant’s statement and providing transcripts of the recorded calls and copies of the messages. The Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.J. (2017)

Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. K.J. was married to the complainant. A bitter divorce ensued and the complainant was originally charged with various offences after separation. He was convicted of assault and fail to comply. Sometime after those convictions, the complainant then alleged that K.J. was making calls to his employer, posting information on social media and making calls to an agency that the complainant was associated with, all of which was alleged to have caused him to fear for his safety. He also alleged that he lost his job because of the calls. Joseph Neuberger was the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of the family court documents, the statement of defence from the wrongful dismissal action brought by the complainant against his former employer and the recordings of the calls made by K.J. Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown and provided a chart detailing the allegations and the source material to refute much of what was alleged by the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that all impugned calls may have been unpleasant for the complainant but they contained truthful information and did not contain any threats. More importantly, the complainant was not truthful about many aspects of his evidence. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no criminal offence committed by K.J. and as such the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.V. (2017)

Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to touching dismissed. The trial began in the Superior of Court of Justice, Toronto. The charges were in relation to allegations that the accused molested his son nearly a dozen times over the course of a month. Defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. He conducted a preliminary inquiry and cross-examined the complainant and his sister in great detail. At trial, Christopher Assie vigorously cross-examined the complainant and elicited dozens of contradictions between his testimony and various statements to the police. The complainant admitted to having lied to the police in order to incriminate his father. Through a skillful cross-examination, Christopher Assie was able to set out that the complainant had fabricated the abuse in order to have his father removed from the home due to the parental alienation that his mother had inflicted on her son. The cross-examination was so powerful that the prosecutor acknowledged that irreparable harm had been done to the complainant’s credibility and that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor elected to not call any further evidence and urged the judge to dismiss the case against the client.

Regina v. M.S. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault, and Assault with Weapon x 2 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. M.S. and his wife got into an argument over chats that she had discovered on his computer. The two got into a heated argument that then escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant wife contacted police and M.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence lawyer. At the initial intake meeting, Joseph Neuberger noted that M.S. had injuries. These injuries were not documented by the police. M.S. was sent to his doctor immediately and photographed. It was discovered that in fact M.S. had sustained a serious head injury, and abrasions. A full report was obtained from his doctor and was provided to the Crown with pictures of the injuries. Joseph Neuberger was able to send a private investigator to take a further statement from the complainant and photograph the kitchen where the fight is alleged to have occurred. Blood photographed on the wall matched the description given by M.S. to his defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials but turned over the further statement of the complainant, photographs of the kitchen and a description of how the alleged assault took place and M.S.’ version was the correct version in which he was attacked first and sustained the more serious injuries. An agreement was reached to withdraw all charges and the client signed a six month common law peace bond.

Regina v. D.P. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after lengthy period of discussions with the Crown. D.P. had just separated from her wife. An argument erupted over custody of their one son. Prior to separation, the wife (complainant) was living out of the country and D.P. was in primary care of their son. D.P. left the house to avoid any further argument as the son was present in the house. When he returned an hour later, police were at the house and he was accused of assaulting his wife. The complainant immediately filed in Family court for sole custody but an Order was granted with some access to D.P. on an interim basis. The complainant refused to allow the son to see D.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired and obtained all of the family court documents and used the filed affidavits by the complainant to establish material inconsistencies between her statement to police and the family court filings. Eventually the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. G.C. (2017)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Bracebridge. The charges were of two separate complainants. One was alleged to have occurred in 2010 and the other in 2014. In 2014 G.C. met a lady off of Plenty of Fish website. They had a date. G.C. slept over at the complainant’s home and left the next morning. About three days later he was contacted by police and charged with sexual assault, allegedly holding the complainant down and masturbating in front of her. When that case was investigated, the police dug up a complaint from 2010 and reinvestigated that case and decided to lay the charge in addition to the 2014 allegation. The 2010 complaint was from G.C. seeing a young lady for about four to five weeks and she alleged that he forced sexual intercourse on her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger conducted a preliminary hearing and cross-examined each complainant in great detail. He also called other witnesses regarding the 2010 allegation that established exculpatory evidence. The case was then set down for trial in the Superior Court. The Crown brought an application for Similar Facts in order to support the credibility of each complainant. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross examined the 2014 complainant on a series of messaging that showed clearly an overtone of sexual interest prior to the date. In addition messages sent by the complainant immediately after the alleged sexual assault included “LOL” and a message that was at odds with her complaint. This evidence proved to be very compelling in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish other areas of issues with her evidence that defied logic and common sense. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the second complainant on her memory issues, obvious fabricated evidence, inconsistencies and the fact that the complainant had found out after the date of the alleged intercourse that G.C. had in fact met and had a romantic night with her best friend. Joseph Neuberger then called the complainant’s sister who spoke with the complainant the day after the alleged sexual assault. The sister knew G.C. from coming around the home and was told by the complainant that she was “head over heels” for G.C., and that she was excited at her relationship with G.C. going to the next level. There were other statements made after the alleged incident including that the complainant found out about the relationship with her friend and only then went to the police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged that out of immaturity and anger, the complainant felt wronged and went to the police and made an allegation that was not true. At trial the client was well prepared to testify and gave his response to the allegations. In judgment, the Court dismissed the similar act application finding in fact that the two cases were not connected in time nor circumstances, and accepted the evidence of G.C. In fact, the Court accepted the defence argument in finding both complainants not credible. The judgment goes quite far in finding G.C. factually innocent. Thus G.C. was acquitted of both charges of sexual assault.

Regina v. M.B. (2017)

Two charges of Indecent Act withdrawn after a year and half of negotiations with the Crown. The client was alleged to have exposed himself twice in a cemetery. There were two witnesses who identified him. He was arrested some six months after the alleged offences. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained to defend the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to attack the identification evidence however there was other independent evidence that supported the identification. M.B. was referred by his defence team to undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment and therapy. After a comprehensive assessment and therapy, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. K.Z. (2017)

Charge of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after numerous judicial pre-trials. K.Z. had met a young lady and the two went to dinner and then decided to stay at a hotel. During the course of the evening an argument broke out and the complainant ran from the room to the front lobby and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted. The client was arrested. He was in Canada as a student and any finding of guilt would have resulted not only in jail but removal from Canada. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained. Joseph Neuberger consented to DNA testing as the Crown wanted to see if in fact any DNA from K.Z. was on the complainant. Furthermore the client had given a problematic statement to police but there were contradictory aspects to the complainant’s statement as well. The DNA results showed the presence of DNA that matched K.Z. but was not where the complainant had alleged it would be on her person. Further there could have been innocent transference of DNA. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko researched the statement issue and developed a strong argument to exclude the client’s statement from trial. After extensive discussions with the Crown and the pr-trial judge about the merits of the case, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client signed a common law peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.Q. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Assault x 2 and Choking withdrawn after extensive defence investigation and negotiations with the Crown Attorney. A.Q. and his wife were having marital issues related to alleged drug abuse by the wife. One Friday, the complainant wife did not return home with the child of the marriage. A.Q. got worried and called police and CAS. The complainant and the child were found and later returned home. However, a dispute broke out about what happened and A.Q. had stated that he wanted a divorce and that the child was not safe in the complainant’s care. The next day, the complainant attended a police station along with several of her family members and made a number of historic allegations of domestic abuse including sexual assault. A.Q. was arrested. He retained Joseph Neuberger as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed all the statements including three long statements given by the complainant. A chart was creating by Joseph Neuberger noting numerous inconsistencies in details, dates, and factual allegations. In addition, when obtained medical records from the family physician, there was a complete lack of any evidence of physical injuries contemporaneous with the dates of the alleged assaults. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained other evidence with the assistance of his client and then prepared defence disclosure to the Crown along with a detailed letter outlining the reliability issues of the complainant, including a copy of the defence chart. After extensive and prolonged discussions with the Crown, all charges were withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.S.G. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 dismissed after one day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.S.G. had been having an affair. His wife discovered the affair and the marriage deteriorated. After a few months, S.S.G. informed his wife that he wanted a divorce. Shortly after an argument about the divorce, the complainant attended a police station and S.S.G. was charged with two charges of domestic abuse that were to have occurred one month prior. After S.S.G. was charged, the complainant filed a divorce application and specifically sought sole custody of their three year old son. The complainant had told police in her statement that she feared for her safety and that of her son. In the divorce case the complainant was opposed to any access other than supervised access for two hours once a week. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. Joseph Neuberger had the client retain a family lawyer immediately and began the defence of the case. Mr. Neuberger obtained copies of all of the family court documents. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the allegations in family court and established that in fact there were no issues of parenting by S.S.G of their son, and the complainant had no explanation as to why she sought sole custody other than revenge for the affair. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with S.S.G. in preparation for his testimony. The Crown at trial cross-examined S.S.G., to the effect that he was the “man of the house”, the “sole bread winner” and “sought to dominate his wife”. The line of cross-examination continued in this path. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant about her background and in fact the complainant had several University degrees including a Masters in Physics and a Bachelor of Education. In submissions, Joseph Neuberger cautioned the court on falling into the trap of the Crown drawing upon archaic myths and stereotypes of men seeking to “control” and exploit their position without any evidence whatsoever to support such allegations. The thrust of the Crown’s argument was essentially S.S.G., like all men, seek to dominate and control and thus abuse their wives. This was rejected by the court. S.S.G. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. Z.L. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Fraud Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. Z.L. and his girlfriend had an argument about something that had occurred regarding her friends. A decision was made by Z.L. to end their relationship. Sometime after the end of the relationship the complainant attended a police station and alleged that Z.L. had hacked into her account and transferred funds to himself. Further, she alleged allegations of sexual assault and that Z.L. knew she was underage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After careful review of the disclosure, including the two statements of the complainant and alleged banking documents, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that the banking documents were fraudulent and in fact no money had been taken from the complainant. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial during which it was established that the complainant was not reliable as to the allegations. In fact, Joseph Neuberger, produced defence evidence including pictures showing that all contact was consensual and the complainant represented to Z.L. that she was in fact 17 and not underage. As a result, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. L.Z. (2017)

Charges of domestic Assault x 4 stayed on the eve of trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend on two separate occasions including choking her. The complainant gave two statements to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after an in-depth interview of the client and two potential defence witnesses, sought disclosure from the Crown of two 911 calls made by the client around the dates of the alleged assaults including police records about the calls. Once obtained these calls revolved around instances of mental instability where L.Z. called police and ambulance services due to his fear of his girlfriend harming herself. It became clear from this disclosure that the complainant had unfortunately a serious mental health issue. On each instance L.Z. was restraining the complainant to prevent her from self harm. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger broke down the two statements and provided the Crown with a chart demonstrating material inconsistencies that supported the defence position that the only physical contact was for protection of the complainant and not an assault. Further, the complainant wrote a letter to the Crown about how at the time of providing her statements she was quite depressed and confused as a result of her illness. Joseph Neuberger pressed the Crown to speak with the complainant about her letter and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous court appearances and pre-trials all charges were stayed.

Regina v. C.V. (2017)

Client discharged of first degree, second degree murder and manslaughter after a one month preliminary hearing. C.V. was charged with numerous offences along with three other individuals regarding a robbery and shooting at a restaurant in Toronto. C.L. was not the shooter but was alleged to have been sufficiently connected to the shooting of the victim to be tried on first or second degree murder. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko defended C.L. and were able to establish that there was insufficient evidence to establish that C.L. had knowledge that any shooting would occur and that he did not play a substantial role in the death of the victim. As such C.L. was committed to trial only upon armed robbery and related offences but not the murder allegations.

Regina v. C.P. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.P. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault. She had a very turbulent relationship with her husband with whom she had three children. It was alleged that C.P. placed a phone call to 911 and stated that her husband was abusing one of their children. Officers arrived at C.P.s and her husband’s residency. They spoke to the children who denied any abuse. It was further alleged that the husband had some injuries and upon further inquiries, the husband stated that C.P. became very angry with him because she was drinking and that she started hitting and scratching him. Officers placed C.P under arrest. C.P. was very stressed about the situation. In addition to her criminal charges, she was going through a divorce process with her husband. Defence Counsel Mariya Protsenko was able to offer a lot of support and was always available to C.P. by email, by phone and in person. The statement of the complainant had a number of internal inconsistencies that detracted from its reliability. However, C.P. was very stressed. Counsel negotiated that C.P. complete an anger management program and the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charges upon C.P. entering into a peace bond.

Regina v. K.A. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Death withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. The complainant and K.A. had been married for approximately three years. The two met in Morrocco. The complainant was 15 years younger than K.A. K.A. sponsored the complainant to come to Canada and when she arrived the two got married. Allegedly shortly after the marriage arguments started between the two about their lifestyle in Canada. In July of 2015 an argument ensued and K.A. informed the complainant he wanted a divorce. The two continued to live together but shortly after the argument the complainant attended the police and alleged numerous allegations of abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger obtained from his client dozens of receipts for trips, gifts and pictures of events and holidays that when put into context showed a loving relationship with a lavish treatment of the complainant. This was in stark contrast to the statement of the complainant explaining the entire marriage as a nightmare. The matter came for preliminary hearing but the complainant refused to testify. Details of the defence case were disclosed by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for consideration of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, the Crown expressed concerns about the complainant’s emotional well being if testifying. An agreement was eventually reached for an assessment to be conducted. The assessment was completed and provided to the Crown. As a result of all of the factors in this case the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. J.M. (2017)

Charges of Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Bodily Harm withdrawn. J.M. and her husband decided to divorce prior to trial. The two remained living separate and apart in the matrimonial home. One day an argument erupted over finances and custody of the children. The argument got heated and physical contact occurred. The complainant husband called police and gave a statement about being assaulted and his chain being torn from his neck. The chain he wore was broken. J.M. was charged, held for bail and placed on conditions to not return to the house and access to the children to be through a third party or via a family court order. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was retained. After having reviewed the two statements of the complainant and obtaining email and text communications between J.M. and the complainant for the days leading up to the alleged charges, it was obvious that threats were being made by the complainant to seek sole custody of the children and the complainant was being very demeaning in his remarks to J.M. Extensive materials were provided to the Crown including many of the communications between the parties. J.M. undertook a therapy program. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also disclosed to the Crown family court pleadings that demonstrated baseless allegations that contradicted material portions of the complainant’s statements to police. In addition the complainant was refusing to pay any support. J.M. was employed as a real estate agent and needed to maintain her employment to support herself and the children. After extensive discussions with the Crown all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.L. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn just prior to commencement of trial. M.L. was charged with assault after his ex-wife made a complaint to police about of an alleged assault immediately after she and M.L. had a disagreement over the matrimonial property. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and he carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and the family court documents. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with his client and obtained source documents to refute various aspects of the complainant’s evidence. In addition, M.L. was actually assaulted by his wife and took pictures of his injuries. The police notes showed inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. For example, when first spoken to by police, the complainant described an assault which was inconsistent with the injury claimed by the complainant. In fact the police officer noted “no injuries consistent with the alleged assault”. The next day, the complainant attended the police station to provide a video-taped statement and showed officers a swollen hand and claimed it was a result of the assault she reported but the police notes clearly indicate “the complainant could not explain how she obtained the injury”. However, her injury was consistent with M.L.’s defence and his description of how he was assaulted by the complainant. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, assisted by his senior paralegal Grace Condello, charted out the evidence, inconsistencies and the evidence supportive of M.L. M.L. had not seen his son in 9 months since being charged because the complainant had not complied with the family court order. Due to the time issues and the urgency to bring a motion on in family court, Joseph Neuberger approached the Crown and provided extensive defence disclosure including pictures and the chart of the evidence. The Crown reviewed the material and determined based upon the defence evidence there was NO reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. P.L. (2017)

Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant and P.L. had been dating for over two years. The relationship deteriorated and after an argument P.L. was charged with criminal harassment. Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained and P.L. attended counselling. Mariya Protsenko and Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a breakdown of the allegations in chart format and the legal test based on relevant case law. It was argued that the conduct complained of could not have made the complainant fear for her safety. A favourable therapy report was provided to the Crown and the charge was withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.G. (2017)

Client acquitted of charges of Assault with Weapon x 4 (Domestic), Threat Death x 2, Sexual Assault, Assault x 3, Attempt Sexual Assault and Breach Undertaking after an eight (8) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. After a bitter separation and a decision by the court to place the children in the care of Mr. R.G., the former wife went to police an alleged historical physical and sexual abuse. There were two very lengthy statements provided by the complainant. Defence lawyers John Navarrete and Joseph Neuberger were the defence team on the file. After careful analysis of the statements, a chart of inconsistencies was drafted to assist with cross-examination. The defence lawyers obtained from the client emails, text messages, pictures, reports of experts and all the family court documentation to draft a very detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant. A lengthy probing cross-examination revealed serious issues of credibility and reliability of the complainant and the obvious motivation to fabricate the allegations to gain custody back of the children. In fact, after the charges were laid, the complainant drew on the criminal allegations to remove custody of the children from R.G. The client testified in his own defence. After detailed written submissions, the Court found Mr. R.G. not guilty of all counts.

Regina v. K.H. (2017)

Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 2, Mischief to Property, Trespass and Public Intoxication withdrawn after lengthy negotiations with the Crown and police. Client had a bad night with heavy drinking. When ejected from a bar, the client was not the best in public and police were called. Unfortunately, the intervention of police resulted in a scuffle that then wound up in the client being charged with a number of offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had lengthy discussions with the Crown and had the client perform community service, take various therapy programs, and undertake other restorative steps that ultimately resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges.

Regina v. S.G. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death, obstruct justice, intimidate a justice participant, and fail to comply x 2, dismissed after a four day trial. S.G. was alleged to have assaulted his daughter in law, and threatened to kill her. After he was charged, the complainant attended police again and alleged that S.G. re-attended the home and not only communicated with her but attempted to have her change her story to police by threatening her with further violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After carefully scrutinizing the complainant’s evidence, Joseph Neuberger, obtained statements from S.G.’s surety and neighbours to show that at no time did S.G. return to the home where his daughter was living and obtained medical evidence about physical restrictions that S.G. had which were inconsistent with the manner in which the complainant alleged the assault occurred. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the complainant extensively and established material inconsistencies not only between her two statements but also within her in court testimony. Many of the inconsistencies were not supportive of the allegations and significantly damaged her reliability and credibility. During the second phase of the trial, upon careful consideration of the evidence, the Crown attorney directed the judge that there was no longer any prospect of conviction and S.G. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. J.N. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief under withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The client and the complainant have been married for a number of years with five children. During a heated argument about ending the marriage, the police were called an allegations of domestic violence were made. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and after reviewing the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of text messages that suggested, prior to the argument, that the complainant was particularly angry at the suggestion that J.N. would want to end the marriage and was fore warning about possible charges. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the bail was varied so that J.N. could return home and the complainant and J.N. were allowed to attend marital counselling. After an extensive period of counselling the Crown agreed to withdrawn the charges in favour of a common law peace bond..

Regina v. P.L. (2017)

Client found not guilty of charges of Internet Luring x 2, and Obtaining the Sexual Services of a Person Under 18 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged in a York Regional Police project called “Raphael” designed to catch individuals who are attempting to obtain services of minors. The client had messaged a lady who advertised on the Backpages website and unbeknownst to the client the person at the other end was an undercover police officer. The main issue was given the context of the communications, the timing and sequencing of messages, did the client take reasonable steps to ascertain the person purported to be the escort was older than 18. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established through cross-examination at trial that P.L. had in fact inquired about age and because of the overlap in messaging, P.L. had the reasonable belief that the alleged escort was actually 25, when in fact the undercover officer was referring to an amount of money in his messages but without the use of a dollar sign. Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized the messages and obtained a forensic analysis of the client’s phone to establish timing of the messages. A comprehensive book of authorities was filed at trial by the defence and it was clear to the judge that P.L.’s belief that the person he thought he was communicating with was 25 and not underage, and thus he had taken “reasonable steps” to ascertain the age and was satisfied that she was 25 years of age. This was a very technical defence based on the evidence and case law, BUT P.L. was sincere and honest in his belief and was found not guilty at trial.

Regina v. C.C.S. (2017)

Charges of Kidnapping x 2, Extortion, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with Weapon, Point Firearm, Criminal Organizations, stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice at the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted a Chinese Visa student as a result of an issue regarding a young lady and for the purposes of extortion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained video surveillance from the various locations showing the complainant was not under the control of the client and in fact appeared to be interacting in a friendly manner. The alleged injuries as reflected in the medical records were not consistent with the alleged beatings. Further, Joseph Neuberger interviewed several defence witnesses and provided the evidence to the Crown. The complainant left Canada and the Crown sought mutual legal assistance from the People’s Republic of China but the defence challenged the use of video testimony as the laws of China were to apply to the preliminary hearing. The defence was successful on a motion and the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. A.P. (2017)

Charges of Assault x 3, Weapons Dangerous x 3, Threaten Death x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn on the first day of trial. The client was charged with a number of domestic related offences. The complainant brought the allegations after deciding to separate from A.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger raised significant inconsistencies between the statement of the complainant, her daughter’s statement, and Affidavit material filed in the Family Court Proceeding. Cross examination focused on these inconsistencies. After a break in the trial the Crown withdrew the charges as a result of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.P. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Threaten Death (Domestic), dismissed after seven day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at 1000 Finch Avenue West. S.P. was alleged to have sexually and physically abused his niece from the moment she arrived in Canada from March of 2012 up to January 7, 2015. The complainant had medical records demonstrating that she sustained injuries including a broken nose, bruising and puncture wounds. The medical records were from her visit to hospital at the time S.P. was arrested. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained as the lead defence counsel and Mariya Protsenko as the second defence lawyer on the file. Careful review and scrutiny of the complainant’s statement and medical records was conducted along with an extensive defence investigation. A private investigator was hired who interviewed three independent witnesses that testified at trial as to observing the complainant fall on January 7th and sustain certain injuries and another witness as to the compliant having confided in her that the complainant wanted to break up S.P.’s marriage so that she could marry him and obtain immigration status in Canada. At trial, the complainant’s evidence became far more detailed and extensive than in her statement to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant over a two day period putting to her numerous inconsistencies, omissions and improbable assertions that undermined her credibility. Joseph Neuberger utilized the medical records to also undermine the complainant’s evidence about the alleged physical and sexual abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert in order to assert in cross-examination that the medical records proffered by the Crown were inconsistent with the evidence of the alleged abuse. Further, the defence marshalled the theory that the complainant lied about the allegations to protect her secret agenda that had been discovered by S.P. on January 7th and was to be exposed to her family. After extensive a detailed cross-examination of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the defence called three independent witnesses and then rested its case. The Court determined that the complainant was not credible or reliable and thus found S.P. not guilty of all charges.

R. v. R.R. (2017)

After a trial lasting over 3 years, with numerous civilian and police witnesses being called, client acquitted of several charges in the Ontario Court of Justice, including assaulting peace officer and assault with a weapon. Client was charged with several offences after an incident occurred in an apartment building in Toronto, which ultimately resulted in the client being shot 5 times with a C-8 assault rifle by police. Extensive cross-examination of all witnesses revealed inconsistencies in the evidence which resulted in all charges being dismissed.

R. v. W.C. (2016)

Client acquitted of 2 counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement relating to two different complainants, in two separate incidents that occurred at a work party. Both complainants were extensively cross-examined by lawyer Stacey Nichols, revealing serious inconsistencies in their stories which resulted in the client being acquitted of all charges in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence witnesses were also called by Ms. Nichols which contradicted both Complainant’s version of events.

Regina v. M.N. (2016)

Client found not guilty of Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Utter Death Threats, Point Firearm, and Possession of Firearm, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. M.N. was alleged to have threatened and assaulted his ex-wife over an alleged dispute regarding their son. M.N. and the complainant had been divorced for several years but were still sharing custody of their young son. Over the course of a few months, tensions got heated regarding custody and child support issues. The complainant alleged that on Mother’s Day M.N. attended her apartment building and waited for her to return from work. As she was walking to the apartment at approximately 8:00 p.m. she alleged that M.N. got out of his car and pushed her to the corner of the building and put a gun to her head, threatening to kill her unless she provided him with the baby bonus cheques. M.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko. After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody. In fact, arguments had occurred prior to the date of the alleged offence wherein M.N. had suggested that their son would be better off living with him and his family because the complainant was working long hours and travelling extensively. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents and used a number of the documents in cross examination of the complainant. Further, at trial, evidence of the complainant suggested that the event took well over 10 minutes with extensive details of how the event unfolded. However, the building video surveillance showed M.N. exiting his car, walking up to the complainant, then going out of range, and coming back to his car with a duration of less than 60 seconds. In cross examination, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to draw out the alleged details from the complainant and then put to the complainant the actual duration of the surveillance. Further, material inconsistencies arose during cross-examination that undermined her credibility. M.N. testified in his own defence and denied the allegations. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court acquitted M.N. of all charges.
Read More

Regina v. X.L. (2016)

Charges of Utter Death Threats x 4 withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was in a bitter custody dispute with her former husband. The day prior to the alleged threatening conduct, her father passed away. Due to a verbal argument in which a threat was made about obtaining sole custody, the complainant allegedly uttered a number of threats. Although the threats were actually uttered, given the history, and the circumstances, there was little objective reality to the complainant actually meaning to carry through any of the threats. The client attended therapy sessions and did very well in therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the report, numerous character letters and negotiated a withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. I.Z. (2016)

Charges of Firearms Trafficking, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Weapons Dangerous and Possession of Overcapacity Magazines all withdrawn just prior to trial. I.Z.’s home was searched pursuant to a Warrant issued on the primary basis of a confidential source’s information. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, reviewed the Warrant, and the Information to Obtain, and sought source material. It was obvious very little was done by police to confirm the C.I.’s information. In fact, surveillance of I.Z. yielded nothing of probative value although the Justice issued the Warrant. Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional Challenge alleging a section 8 Search and Seizure breach such that the Warrant was deficient and provided insufficient grounds for a search. Just prior to trial, the crown conceded that the Warrant was thin and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.O. (2016)

Charges of Mischief, Domestic Assault, Threatening, Breach of Bail, Mischief to Data and Obstruct all withdrawn prior to commencement of the trial. P.O. who was charged with domestic allegations by his wife while he was on bail for a Refuse Roadside Sample for which she was the one who called police, was alleged to have communicated with her after being charged and the complainant alleged a historical assault, a threat to kill her and other allegations regarding their jointly owned business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the complainant fabricated the allegations because P.O. had filed for divorce and for her to gain an economic advantage in the divorce. Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic technology expert to show there was no mischief to data and interference with the complainant’s business. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.I. (2016)

Client found not guilty of a charge of Sexual Assault after five day trial in the Superior Court in Barrie. D.I. was invited to a party in Barrie at a young lady’s home whom he met via Plenty of Fish dating site. The party became extremely large and out of control. D.I. was drinking as everyone at the party was intoxicated and using marijuana. The complainant met up with the client during the evening and took shots from his bottle. At some point, the two went to D.I.’s car and sexual intercourse took place. As D.I. was exiting the car, he was pulling up his pants and a police officer had arrived and noticed D.I. D.I. appeared highly intoxicated and the officer thought he was going to attempt to drive. When he looked into the car, the officer found the complainant passed out in the car. Several police and paramedics attempted to wake up the complainant but she was unresponsive. She was removed from the car, place on a stretcher and taken to hospital. D.I. was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown pursued the prosecution on two grounds. First, that the complainant was heavily intoxicated and D.I. knew she was heavily intoxicated. Her blood alcohol readings were between 254 and 295 mg per 100 millilitres of blood. A very high level. Thus the Crown argued that at such a high level of intoxication she lacked the “capacity” to consent to sexual activity and D.I. knew this or was wilfully blind that he lacked consent. The second ground was that the complainant must have passed out during sexual contact in the car and thus D.I. no longer had consent as per the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Regina v. J.R.. In addition, the Crown relied on an Ontario Court of Justice decision wherein the Court stated that because the complainant in that case was passed out and was unresponsive, there was clear evidence that she lacked the capacity to consent.

Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined all Crown witnesses as to their observations of the complainant and showed that all Crown witnesses were unreliable. However, the complainant, under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, admitted that she has been drinking excessively for several months leading up to the date of the party. In fact, the complainant drank four to five times per week at least 375 ml of rum per night and when drunk was a heavy sleeper. The complainant admitted to being an experienced drinker who developed a high level of tolerance. During the party, she admitted to be a social butterfly and being able to socialize, talk, walk and have fun. That the alcohol helped her be more social and she enjoyed herself. However, after a point of drinking she had no memory of the events. Under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger she admitted that she cannot remember if she consented to sexual contact due to her memory loss.

An expert toxicologist testified for the Crown. The toxicologist testified at to the blood alcohol levels and the general effects of high levels of alcohol. Under cross-examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the expert agreed that the pattern of drinking of the complainant is indicative of a “heavy” drinker and she would not doubt have a higher degree of tolerance. It would be no surprise that she could be functional even while at such a high level of intoxication. More importantly, the expert agreed that just because the complainant was found to be passed out in the car and not responding to police and paramedics, thus in a deep sleep, it does not mean that the complainant could not have been functional 10, 12, 13 or even 15 minutes prior to being found passed out. This one important evidentiary point directly contradicts that finding of the court in the case the Crown was relying upon.

Stacey Nichols and Joseph Neuberger crossed other witnesses that showed the complainant was functional and in fact was outside the house having a cigarette minutes before the sexual contact, and appeared to smile and be “fine”. In addition, although the Crown refused to call medical evidence, Joseph Neuberger extracted from the police witnesses that the complainant was released from hospital some two hours later without any treatment for alcohol poisoning or for any distress and that in fact by an hour or so after her arrival in hospital she was awake and talking to hospital staff. Thus, this evidence detracted from the argument that the complainant was in an exceptionally intoxicated state. Finally, the Crown tendered the video statement of the client.

Based on all the evidence, the Court found D.I. innocent and thus not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Case Comment: When dealing with sexual assault cases where the Crown alleges “incapacity to consent” it is extremely important to focus on the surrounding evidence and understand cognitive functioning and that consent to intimate contact requires a minimal level of cognitive functioning.

Regina v. J.E. (2016)

Charges of Assault, Threaten Death and Fail to Comply x 3 withdrawn after third judicial pre-trial. J.E. was alleged to have followed and ran off the road his former brother in law and assaulted him in addition to threatening him. The client was not supposed to have contact with the complainant. There was also an alleged independent witness who confirmed the complainant’s story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger video recorded the route and then canvassed the surrounding businesses for any surveillance recordings. Further, after a defence investigation Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the independent witness was in fact a friend of the complainant. The defence recording showed that it was impossible for the client to have driven as alleged and ran the complainant off the road into a plaza. Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the defence evidence over the course of several judicial pre-trials and as a result the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. S.S. (2016)

Charges of domestic assault x 2, and threaten death x 2 withdrawn after commencement of trial. Mr. S.S. had married his wife in India and after about two years of living together in Canada, repeated arguments arose regarding his work and finances. S.S. was her sponsor and the complainant had asked for him to sponsor his family. S.S. decided to separate and prior to the formal separation, S.S. was charged with assault and threatening. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained emails and text messages showing that the complainant was having an extramarital affair. In addition, the joint savings account had numerous withdrawals. This material was provided by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown at the start of the trial and during the initial phase of cross-examination. Based upon discussions, the charges were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.

R v. J.C.B. (2016)

Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and internet luring withdrawn after extensive defence investigation. The client had met the complainant through an online dating site. The communications between the two continued for two weeks prior to meeting up. The initial communications were via the dating site but the majority of communications were by text messaging. The two met, went on a date and eventually had an intimate encounter. J.C.B. shortly after stopped communicating with the complainant because of excessive messages and calls. J.C.B. also came learn that the complainant was 15 and not 20 as she had noted on her profile. A few weeks later the mother of the complainant saw some of the text messages and that J.C.B. was 29. Police were contacted and charges were laid. The complainant gave a statement that included allegations that she was forced to have intimate contact with J.C.B. and had been clear with him that she was under age. After the charges were laid the complainant started to communicate again with J.C.B. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Each text message was downloaded and saved as defence evidence. Also, Joseph Neuberger retained on the client’s behalf a technology expert to retrieve all of the several hundred text messages between his client and the complainant. Defence Lawyer Joseph reviewed and organized the messages in groups establishing that the complainant led J.C.B. to believe she was older and experienced. Joseph Neuberger then hired a private investigator who pretended to be the client and messaged with the complainant on his phone. A strategy was employed to relate many of the past text messages in their ongoing communication to obtain admissions that she pretended to be older; that she pursued J.C.B. and not only consented to intimate contact, she had helped arrange the date and had talked about wanting to have intimate contact with J.C.B. After several hours of communications there was plenty of defence evidence to prove the complainant felt forced to give the statement she did because of her mother’s pressure and that she did not tell the truth to police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a document brief of all of the messages and disclosed the material to the Crown prosecutor. As a result all charges were withdrawn as the client was innocent. The client is now considering civil action for damages to his reputation and for the legal fees he spent.

R. v. P.P. (2016)

Client charged with one count of assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. Mr. Navarrete obtained various defence evidence and provided it to the Crown including emails and recordings. After reviewing the material the Crown concluded they had no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charges.

R. v. M.L. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Scarborough. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office and convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PPAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated possible mental health issues with the complainant including depression. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. Y.C. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated issues the Crown would face in successfully prosecuting the client at trial. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D.W. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Kitchener. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated to the Crown that the complainant could not be believed given the surveillance video. Mr. Navarrete also provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community. As a result, the Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. J.Z. (2016)

Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference at the Ontario Court of Justice at Old City Hall for an alleged incident that occurred on New Year’s Eve. The client was acquitted after a three day trial. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a thorough cross examination of the child complainant and was able to demonstrate that the version of events could not have occurred when compared to other Crown witnesses’ evidence.

Regina v. S.R. (2016)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a date for trial. S.R. was in a relationship with the complainant for approximately four years. On the day of the alleged incident the two had been in an argument about financial issues as they attended Scarborough Town Centre. As a result of the argument, the two ended their relationship. However, during the argument S.R. was alleged to have yelled at the complainant and “elbowed” her. Two security guards who were in the vicinity heard the argument and allegedly witnessed the assault. S.R. was arrested for assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the exterior surveillance for the mall and nothing was shown on the video other than S.R. being in close proximity to the complainant. As a result, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of the charge.

Regina v. H.L. (2016)

Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a trial date. Mr. H.L. and the complainant were in an eight month relationship. After a falling out, the two broke up but the complainant would not vacate the shared apartment that was leased by H.L. H.L. had allegedly made over 100 calls to the complainant over a period of 24 hours and allegedly banged on the door of the apartment. The complainant called police and H.L. was charged. Defence lawyer Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure and conducted extensive pre-trials with the Crown. Although it was true that H.L. had made the calls there was no evidence of “reasonable” fear. H.L. attended for therapy on issues related to relationships and after a favourable report, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. J.L. (2016)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket Court. Ms. J.L. was charged by York Regional Police after allegedly scratching and punching her husband during a domestic dispute at their house. Ms. J.L. called police. Mandarin was her first language and she was not interviewed properly. But she had visible signs of injuries and she complained of fending off an assault from her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained medical records for his client who sustained an injury that required medical attention. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained occurrence reports of prior calls to police that established a pattern of aggressive conduct by the complainant – her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with medical records and the occurrence reports. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. Z.K.L (2016)

Charges of assault and threaten death (domestic) withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney. Z.K.L. was allegedly to have grabbed and pushed his wife during a heated argument about the raising of their child. There was also an allegation of a threat. However, Z.K.L. sustained scratch marks on his neck and chest while the complainant sustained no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the injuries photographed and a medical expert examine the injuries who confirmed they were fresh – proximate in time to the alleged assault – and were consistent finger nails as the manner in which the marks were made. The pictures and report were disclosed to the Crown by Joseph Neuberger. The issue became clear that the couple wanted to reconcile and so Joseph Neuberger suggested individualized counselling followed by marital counselling in order to address the reasons for the couples’ arguments. After extensive therapy, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. E.T. (2016)

Charges of Luring x 2 and obtaining the sexual services of someone under 18, withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. E.T. was charged in a York Regional Police sting operation. The police place an ad on the Backpages for an escort of 18 years of age. During texting, the undercover officers indicates that the pretend escort is younger than 18. In this case, the officer sent a single text to E.T. and there was no direct reply by E.T. There was no confirmation or acknowledgement by E.T. of the alleged age. Joseph Neuberger conducted extensive legal research and had several pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial. Joseph Neuberger argued that the Crown must establish that the accused knew the age and although it could be inferred, there was no evidence from the text messages that gave any evidence that E.T. had actually read the text. Further, Joseph Neuberger argued that the timing of the text with the age overlapped in time with a text sent by E.T. and he thus may not have seen the text with the age. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. N.G. (2016)

Charges of domestic assault and threaten death withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The complainant informed N.G. that she wanted a divorce. N.G. then said that he would seek custody of the children. Within two days of that discussion, N.G. was charged by police with two domestic related offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained material from the family court and utilized the pleadings of the complainant to establish to the Crown inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement to police and her pleadings in Family court. Based on the material provided by the defence, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client were to sign a common law peace bond. As such, the client signed a common law peace bond, and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2016)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and Ms. R.A. had been married for about two years. The marriage was having difficulties due to ongoing pressure from both of their careers and poor communication. Unfortunately the two had a heated argument which allegedly escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant allegedly sustained scratch marks to his chest and neck. The complainant called police. When police attended both the complainant and R.A. provided statements. As a result, both the complainant and R.A. were charged with assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from R.A.’s physician medical records detailing injuries well prior to this occurrence that were a result of prior abuse. Joseph Neuberger sent R.A. for private counselling. A report was furnished to the Crown along with a copy of the medical records and as a result the Crown subsequently withdrew the charge of domestic assault.

Regina v. H.B.S. (2016)

A three year odyssey successfully concluded for this client after charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 3 and Threaten Death stayed just prior to the commencement of a two week jury trial. H.B.S. was married for approximately ten years to the complainant. Unfortunately, around year eight of the marriage, the relationship soured and H.B.S. had been talking about a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the complainant signed a marriage contract that limited support and division of property upon a divorce. Ultimately, in April of 2012 the two separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home. In May of 2012, police were called to the home for a domestic incident during which H.B.S. was charged with grabbing his wife’s arm during a verbal argument. There was a small red mark on her arm. When the complainant attended the police station and provided a video statement, the complainant gave information about historical sexual assault allegations and other assaults. H.B.S. was charged with various offences including two serious sexual assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained by H.B.S. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the family court documents, a copy of the marriage contract, and documents related to the complainant’s prior marriage and divorce. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client various pieces of evidence, including emails, cards, pictures, a copy of the wedding video, plus numerous other related material for the purposes of cross-examination and to contradict the complainant’s version of the marriage. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, extensively and in a detailed fashion, cross-examined the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained an admission from the complainant that in the divorce proceedings she was seeking to set aside the marriage contract partially due to the fact that she was alleging in an abusive relationship with H.B.S. prior to marriage and prior to signing the marriage contract. Thus, a conviction in the criminal case would bolster her case in the family court to set aside the marriage contract and the complainant could then gain over $2,000,000.00. There were numerous other inconsistencies raised by the defence including that both alleged brutal sexual assaults left NO injuries, yet in May of 2012 when she called the police, a red mark was found on her arm because the complainant stated that she “bruised easily.” Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger further established that an alleged assault from 2002, supposedly witnesses by her sister, was not reliable. In fact, the complainant had written out the statement of her sister and Joseph Neuberger alleged that there was obvious collusion. Joseph Neuberger disclosed additional defence evidence to the Crown and continually argued that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Finally, just before the commencement of the jury trial, the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. M.S. (2016)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Threaten Death, withdraw after pre-trial discussions. M.S. was alleged to have been in an altercation with his former girlfriend in their apartment. Police were called by a neighbour and injuries were observed. However, the complainant refused to provide a statement. Police arrested M.S. based upon the statement of the neighbour, the injuries and the state of the apartment. M.S. retained a lawyer who then set the matter down for trial. At some point after setting the trial date, M.S. changed counsel and retained Joseph Neuberger. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed M.S., and in fact on the day of the alleged assault, M.S. had sustained injuries for which he attended his doctor. A report was obtained from the doctor by Neuberger. Further, Joseph Neuberger, adjourned the trial date and booked a judicial pre-trial. During the pre-trial, Joseph Neuberger provided the defence medical report that showed “defensive” wounds on M.S. and Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no real prospect of conviction based upon the available evidence. Further, the complainant did not want to attend court for a trial. As a result, the client signed a six month common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.K. (2016)

Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault x 6, Cruelty to Animals and Utter Death Threats x 2, withdrawn at the commencement of trial. H.K. and the complainant had been a couple for over 15 years and married for about six years. While H.K. was away on a business trip, the complainant attended the police station and made allegations of historical and current abuse. The complainant had hired a family law lawyer just prior to attending at the police station. When H.K. arrived home, he was arrested at the airport. The next day, the complainant filed a divorce application, seeking exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of their child. In the Application, the complainant detailed the alleged abuse and the fact that H.K. was charged with various criminal offences. H.K. was held for bail and then released with restrictions not allowing him contact or to attend the home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, obtained all of the family court documents, and reviewed years of emails and messages between the complainant and H.K. Even while away on the business trip, all communications were loving and supportive. In fact, email communications before and after alleged dates of offences showed only a loving and supportive relationship. The client also kept years of cards and pictures also demonstrating a loving relationship, all painting a picture contrary to the complainant’s version of the marriage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the communications and pictures to the Crown prior to trial as well as a detailed letter outlining the lack of corroborating evidence, and significant issues related to a possible motive to fabricate. At the eve of trial, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.B. (2016)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Utter Death Threats were withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. A.B. and the complainant, had separated about three months before the allegations were made. On the day the complainant attended the police to give a statement, A.B.’s family law lawyer had provided a letter to the complainant denying her to remove their child from Toronto. There were email exchanges between the complainant and A.B. that clearly showed the complainant was very angry that she could not remove the child from Toronto. Within a hour after receiving the letter the complainant attended police and provided a statement that some years ago A.B. had assaulted her and that this day A.B. had threatened to kill her. A.B. was arrested, and charged. Family law counsel for A.B. brought a motion to court to prevent the complainant from removing the child from Toronto. The motion was granted. Defence lawyer Joseph obtained all of the family court documents, emails between the complainant and A.B. and some past recorded arguments in which the complainant made serious threats of violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the information to the Crown. After several pre-trial discussions, including providing the Crown with an outline of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. M.D.R. (2015)

Charges of Aggravated Assault, Assault x2, and Utter Death Threats, withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown and during judicial pre-trials. At the point of an argument between M.D.R. and his wife, the complainant, M.D.R. informed the complainant that he wanted a divorce. While upstairs in the bedroom, the complainant called police. An investigation ensued and various statements were made about historical and current allegations of assault. The complainant refused to provide a video recorded statement but had recorded alleged threats made by her husband and had alleged medical records to support the Aggravated Assault charge. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of emails between the parties prior the police being called that supported a motive to fabricate. Further, the defence obtained the medical records which did not support the evidence of the aggravated assault charge. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a defence witness interviewed who provided a solid alibi defence to the aggravated assault charge and an explanation as to how the complainant sustained the injury. In fact, details in the medical records corroborated the statement of the defence witness. All defence investigation material was disclosed to the Crown. The complainant was advised to contact private counsel for independent legal advice. After extensive judicial pre-trial and pre-trial discussions, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.K. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching, stayed after evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the daughter of R.K.’s girlfriend. R.K. and the mother of the complainant had been in a committed relationship for three years. The complainant stated that for a two to three month period in the fall of 2014, R.K. had been touching her inappropriately. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the complainant and the mother of the complainant. Based on the statement of the mother, there appeared to very limited opportunity to have committed any of the alleged sexual assaults and more importantly when comparing the circumstances as described by the mother and the complainant, as to the nature of the relationships, the allegations seemed highly implausible. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to retrieve deleted emails and social media contacts between the complainant and R.K. that showed a healthy and caring relationship almost up to the point that the complainant made her allegations. Just prior to making the allegations, the complainant’s mother had decided to list her house for sale in order to move in with R.K.. This caused considerable emotional fear for the complainant as she did not want the house sold. The defence believed that the allegations were based on the complainant’s fear of her life changing and her mother moving on with her life, such that the allegations were an attempt to break up the relationship with R.K. After testimony at the preliminary hearing and a recantation under examination, the Crown decided to stay all charges.

Regina v. N.D. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault and assault with a weapon withdraw after judicial pre-trial. N.D. was alleged to have stopped his car when his girlfriend exited the car and went to run off. N.D. was accused of forcibly pushing the young lady back in the car and hitting her with an object. The alleged victim would not cooperate with police and during the investigation was in fact charged with public intoxication. A civilian allegedly witnessed the events from about a 100 metres away. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the scene and took measurements and pictures to establish that the witness could not have had a clear view and would not have been able to identify the client. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that given the evidence the charges could not be proven. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2015)

Client charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and administering obnoxious substance arising from a one night stand in Niagara Falls. After a thorough cross examination by defence lawyer John Navarrete of the complainant at the jury at trial, the client was acquitted of all charges. Mr. Navarrete worked with his client closely to ensure not only that he was prepared for his testimony at trial but that all details from the night in question were explored and reviewed.

Regina v. M. B. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend after a night of entertainment in downtown Toronto. Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at College Park. After Mr. Navarrete’s cross examination of the complainant, the court concluded that the complainant’s evidence was simply unreliable given her consumption of alcohol. The client was acquitted at trial.

Regina v. S. F. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown’s office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown’s review. The Crown withdrew the charges and the client entered into a common law peace bond.

Regina v. D. G. (2015)

Client charged with a historical sexual assault involving a family member. After reviewing disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney’s office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the Crown’s case particularly the complainant’s lack of a concrete recollection and issues regarding her mental health. The charges were withdrawn.

R. v. M. L. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to her husband. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various meetings with the Crown at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated various inconsistencies with the husband’s evidence. Charges were withdrawn after the client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. C.L. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various discussions with the complainant’s independent counsel. After several meetings with the Crown in Newmarket, Mr. Navarrete was able to secure a withdrawal of the charges. The client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. J.M.B. (2015)

Client charged with assault against his step daughter. Defence lawyer John Navarrete held various discussions with the Crown Attorney’s office at 1000 Finch and provided information for their consideration including a possible motive to lie by the complainant stemming from her personal mental health issues. The Crown agreed to withdraw all charges against the client.

Regina v. J.W. (2015)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. J.W. was accused by a female co-worker with sexual harassment for months that led up to J.W. allegedly sexually assaulting her on two back to back days at work. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and five WeChat messages that the complainant provided police. These messages were from J.W. on the day of the alleged second assault. Joseph Neuberger obtained from J.W. another message that was sent by the complainant to J.W. that was about work but appeared friendly and contradicted the alleged timing of the second alleged sexual assault. After six hours of cross-examination, Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger raised numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. This was achieved by a very surgical cross-examination. In addition, through cross-examination Joseph Neuberger got the complainant to admit that she deleted all of her WeChat messages to J.W. including messages sent by her after the alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger established as well that the police investigation was highly deficient. The police did not interview any co-workers, did not check the security cameras for possible video of contact between the complainant and J.W., did not seize the complainant’s cell phone to recover her messages to J.W., did not photograph the work area and did not seize work time sheets to even see if J.W. was actually working in the factory at the time of the alleged sexual assaults. After a lengthy and detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the Crown asked the Court to enter verdicts of not guilty on both charges.

Regina v. J.C.H. (2015)

Client discharged after two day preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice of two charges of Sexual Exploitation. J.C.H. was charged arising from his position as a teacher at a school where the two complainants had been attending. The two complainants were long time friends of J.C.H.. The friendships had formed long before J.C.H. had completed University and was certified as a teacher. However, while being a teacher at the same school as the two young ladies, intimate relationships had developed with these young ladies at two different times over a two year period. There were no allegations of sexual assault and the relationships were consensual. However, when the parents found out about the relationships, complaints were made to the police and after a very extensive investigation, J.C.H. was charged with the two counts of sexual exploitation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger went through the voluminous information provided by police in a very detailed fashion including the witnesses statements and the statements of the two young ladies who were the “complainants”. After review of the relevant law, Joseph Neuberger, developed a strategy for cross-examination to bring out the true circumstances of the relationships. The prosecution argued that being a trust family friend of the two young ladies and a teacher at the school with some teaching contact with the young ladies, J.C.H. was in a position of trust and/or authority and there thus guilty. After focused cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the two young ladies at the preliminary hearing and argument in line with the law, the preliminary hearing judge found that there was no evidence to conclude, given the facts are elicited in cross-examination, that J.C.H. was in a position of trust or authority. J.C.H. was factually innocent of the allegations. Usually a teacher is in a position of trust or authority of a student but the determination is fact driven. In this case, the prior healthy relationships, and the evidence of the complainants at the preliminary hearing did not disclose that the nature of the relationships were that of student and teacher but in fact friends. Further, there was minimal contact at school where J.C.H. acted as a supply teacher for both young ladies. Accordingly, J.C.H. was discharged of the offences.

Regina v. D.M. (2015)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials regarding the merits of the prosecution’s case. Mr. D.M. had been divorced from the complainant for over a decade. Unfortunately, relations between the two remained unpleasant. D.M. attended the complainant’s home to meet his two adult son’s and parked his car in the driveway. When he and his sons returned to the residence, the complainant parked behind D.M.’s car and confronted D.M. about parking on her property. An alleged physical altercation occurred and D.M. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had two statements taken from one of D.M.’s son and his fiancé. These statements were provided as defence disclosure to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger argued at the pre-trials that it was the complainant who intentionally sought out a confrontation. This was evidenced from blocking D.M.’s car and approaching him for an argument. After extensive judicial pre-trials, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that at best there would be competing versions of the event as there were witnesses for both the complainant and D.M. who are credible. In the spirit of not having to have even adult children continue in the parental conflict, Joseph Neuberger negotiated that the charge would be withdrawn if D.M. completed an anger management program and conflict resolution course and then would sign a section 810 peace bond. D.M. completed the program, signed the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn. The peace bond was not an admission of any liability and the withdrawal is consistent with the client being innocent. However, given that the children of the failed marriage had been through a lot, it made good sense to resolve without any trial. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.D. (2105)

Charges of domestic assault x 3 withdrawn in the Orangeville Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial dates. A.D. and the complainant allegedly had an altercation wherein A.D. is alleged to have pushed, slapped and grabbed the complainant, his wife. The wife alleged the assaults started in the kitchen and moved to the living room. When police arrived A.D. gave a statement to police that the complainant had come into his office and their discussions quickly escalated to a loud argument about finances. A.D. stated that the complainant wanted him to leave the house and started pushing off his work from his desk, including his computer. When police searched the house, notes were made by the officers that the home office was in a state of disarray and the lap top computer was on the floor. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and given the nature of the alleged assaults, no injuries were noted by the police. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, established that in fact A.D.’s version was at the least credible and gave rise to a valid defence. Further, a subsequent interview of the complainant revealed that in fact an argument did take place in the home office and not in the kitchen or the living room. Based on these and other important admissions, it was agreed that A.D. would sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. F.L. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault x2, and threatening withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials on the merits of the allegations. Sadly, the complainant wife and F.L. were going through a very stressful time in their lives given the health of the child of the marriage. Verbal arguments were common but the complainant alleged that throughout the marriage F.L. was verbally and physically abusive and on one particular day, that F.L. threw a salad bowl at her and her mother. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed collateral witnesses who were closely involved with the family for months leading up to the alleged assault. All witnesses contradicted the version of the marriage and in fact gave very positive evidence about the interactions of the couple. Further, upon careful scrutiny of the statements of the wife and the mother in law, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a chart of inconsistencies establishing to the Crown material deficiencies in the prosecution evidence that would affect credibility. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.S. was charged with allegedly assaulting his girlfriend while he was asking her to move out of his apartment. The two had been living together for a short period of time and the relationship had been deteriorating. The complainant was from out of town and moved to Toronto to live with A.S. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer on the matter, reviewed the statement and evidence. There were no injuries consistent with the alleged assault and the 911 call was made in a calm manner. The fact that the alleged assault occurred coincidentally at the same time as A.S. requesting she leave the premises gave rise to a suspicion of fabrication. Joseph Neuberger negotiated that A.S. attend a therapy group and after completion of the program, the charge would be withdrawn. As such, A.S. signed a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. I.Z. (2015)

Charges of Assault, Assault Peace Officer, Mischief Under $5,000.00, and Unlawfully in a Dwelling, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client, while highly intoxicated, entered the wrong apartment thinking it was his apartment. The client lay down on the couch and when the occupant found the I.Z., a struggle ensued with damage to the apartment. Later there was also a struggle with police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, had the client immediately assessed. The client was young and had never drank before. The independently verified about of alcohol consumed severely impaired the judgment of I.Z. and resulted in him truly believing he was in his own apartment. After therapy and community service work, Joseph Neuberger, negotiated with the Crown that I.Z. sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 5, Sexual Interference, Assault, and Extortion, withdrawn after initial stages of cross-examination of the complainant during the preliminary hearing. A.S. and the complainant were in a relationship for approximately three years. The allegations are domestic related charges. The complainant gave a statement to police in 2013 that A.S. had sexually assaulted her during the early stages of dating when she was only 15 years of age and then after breaking up when she was 18, A.S. had assaulted and sexually assaulted her on numerous times during 2011, 2012 and 2013. There were also allegations that A.S. was forcing the complainant to have intimate relations under the threat of releasing a photo of her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained with the assistance of a forensic expert, historical text and email communications between the parties dating back to 2010. The voluminous amount of communications disclosed that the two continued a relationship and there were other issues that impacted why the complainant had come forth to police and made allegations that were inaccurate given the real state of their relationship. After early cross-examination, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sat down with the Crown Attorney and walked him through the material and history of A.S. and the complainant. The Crown very fairly determined that based upon the disclosed defence emails and text messages, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.I. (2015)

Charge of sexual assault stayed on first day of trial. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a female he met from a dating website. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed numerous text messages between the parties. In addition the defence obtained a copy of the complainant’s profile that she placed on the website. Tracking of the complainants activities showed shortly after the alleged sexual assault, the complainant was back on several dating websites. At trial, there were issues related to the complainant’s ability to testify and after discussions between Joseph Neuberger and the Crown, the charge was formally stayed.

Regina v. P.G. (2015)

Client found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto of sexual assault. The client was accused of attending the complainant’s room in a housing unit around 2:30 am and forcing himself on her. The complainant and P.G. were from Taiwan. The complainant was attending school and had befriended P.G. In the complainant’s statement and testimony she minimized any real contact and relationship with P.G. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from his client’s phone a voluminous amount of text and email communications that directly contradicted the complainant. After extensive cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant had downplayed significant aspects of her relationship with P.G.. Further, available evidence did not support her story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed a defence witness who he called at trial. The witness directly contradicted the complainant on material aspects of her evidence. P.G. testified. In the end, the client was found not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. Q.J. (2015)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was a student adviser/teacher and was alleged to have sexually assaulted an international student at the residence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on text messages sent two days after the alleged assault to Q.J. and just prior to her attendance at the police station. The messages revealed a motive to fabricate. In addition, it appeared that the complainant had colluded with a potential witness which came out during cross-examination of the complainant. During cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant became vague and unclear on discussions and meetings she had with Q.J. prior to the alleged assault. Further, the defence interviewed an independent witness which contradicted the complainant on a number of facts. As such, Q.J. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. P.L. (2015)

Charge of failure to provide the necessities of life (alleged elder abuse case) stayed after one year of extensive judicial pre-trials. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger reviewed extensive medical records produced and statements of witnesses. Both the Crown and defence met and discussed in significant detail whether the facts showed any legal obligation of care. The complainant was living independently, and P.L. was not legally obligated to care for the complainant even though he did. The medical issue that arose was not obvious and the complainant had not wished to attend the doctor. After extensive review of case law, and all of the evidence, the Crown concluded, based on discussions with Joseph Neuberger, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was stayed.

Regina v. B.S. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his wife with allegedly grabbing and hitting her while in the kitchen during an argument. When police attended, the client spoke to police and advised that the argument occurred in the office at which time the complainant had started to throw papers and documents off of his desk. He advised police that he grabbed her to stop her from damaging his work documents. No injuries were visible. After extensive discussions with the Crown and an amendment to the bail allowing the couple to attend joint marriage counselling, the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. A.H. (2015)

Charge of Voyeurism withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have exposed himself of two occasions in a public place. There was extensive psycho-sexual testing completed and therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the alleged conduct was related to mental health issues that did not give rise to any future risk of violence or repeat offences. The client had also completed a considerable amount of community service and remained on release for approximately a year without any further issues. As a result, the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond.

Regina v. B.R. (2015)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. B.R. made allegedly made a video of an encounter with a unidentified female that appeared to be a non-consensual act. B.R. was investigated by police for an unrelated matter and his cell phone was seized and examined by police. Police demanded that B.R. provide them with the pass word to the cell phone. Police found the recording on the phone and charged B.R. A warrant was sought after the phone was seized. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the validity of the demand for the password as a breach of the client’s Charter rights and that the resulting search of the phone was unlawful. The warrant as well was deficient in many respects. Lastly, Joseph Neuberger, argued that the unidentified female may have actually consented and without a statement and hence evidence from the complainant, the Crown could not prove “lack of consent”. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. E.K. (2015)

Client found not guilty of Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, Threaten Bodily Harm, and Sexual Assault with a Weapon after a five day trial in the Superior Court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained along with counsel for the co-accused police records regarding three prior occurrences of the complainant having made sexual assault allegations that were false. In addition, cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant inconsistencies, and substantial memory and recall issues. The two accused did not testify at trial. After considering all of the evidence, the trial judge noted that there were serious issues of credibility and reliability regarding the complainant’s evidence and the Court was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not consented to the sexual contact. As such, E.K. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. D.K. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial. The complainant alleged that she was inappropriately touched and kissed by D.K. during a tutoring session. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement from another student who was also present at the time of the alleged assault. The witness contradicted the evidence of the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the class and office area photographed. The entire space was less than 400 square feet. There was a large window between the office and the class room with a clear view into the classroom. The complainant’s mother was also present, seated in the office area, only a few steps away from where the complainant was working and allegedly assaulted. D.K. had been operating the business for over 14 years with absolutely no other complaints. At trial the Crown determined, based upon all the evidence and a number of relevant factors, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N.C. (2015)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous withdrawn prior to trial date. The client was charged allegedly with hitting and brandishing a knife during an argument with her spouse. No knife was recovered. The complainant sustained no visible injuries. There were background issues pertaining to marital discord over finances and the complainant wanted N.C. to leave the house. After extensive discussions with the Crown, and the complainant taking counselling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2014)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3 and Assault withdrawn after cross-examination by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the former spouse of R.A. R.A. and the complainant had BDSM sexual interests. After R.A. ended the relationship and retained family law counsel, the complainant went to the police and alleged a history of physical, sexual and verbal abuse. R.A. was charged and the complainant also brought a motion in Family Court to obtain sole custody of their child. In light of the charges, an interim order for sole custody was made. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a large volume of emails between the parties dating back to when the parties started dating. The emails disclosed an ongoing relationship where both parties were more than interested in sexual contact and showed that even after the alleged dates of the sexual assaults, the complainant sought intimacy with R.A. even though R.A. made it clear the he wanted no more contact. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded sexual encounters between the parties, three of which occurred after the alleged sexual assaults and after the complainant said all sexual contact had ended. R.A. was originally represented by other counsel. A full day of the preliminary hearing was conducted and the previous defence lawyer failed to cross-examine on the email messages and on the sex tapes. Defence Attorney Joseph Neuberger, once he took over the file, obtained the emails and sex recordings from the client. Joseph Neuberger then brought a section 276 Application to be allowed to cross-examine the complainant on the emails as well as the recordings. The application was granted. Joseph Neuberger then cross-examined the complainant for a full second day of the preliminary hearing. As a result of the cross-examination, the complainant’s credibility was damaged beyond repair. The Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly all charges were stayed.

Regina v. R.A. (2014)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The allegations did not disclose a consistent story. The complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and the alleged assault would have resulted in injury if it were true. However, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown during pre-trial discussions and was able to establish that the Crown had a weak case. As a result, R.A. completed 12 sessions of counselling and then signed a peace bond. Both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K.W. (2014)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.K.W. was alleged to have followed and emailed the complainant, and ex-girlfriend, for several weeks. However, the emails that were disclosed by the complainant were only incomplete. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the email threads that established the complainant was initiating contact as well. In addition, the defence was able to establish that on two occasions when the complainant said that she was followed by C.K.W., he was in fact at work. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.T. (2014)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant alleged that S.T. had struck her while at Canada’s Wonderland. The client was arrested by security. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement of another witness that showed the complainant and first grabbed the crotch area of S.T. resulting in him striking her to get her to stop the assault. As a result of the independent witness statement the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.R. (2014)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Extortion discharged after completion of the Preliminary Hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a subordinate volunteer at a religious centre over the course of several years. The historical sexual assault allegations included a wide ranging array of sexual acts, as well as threats and coercion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively and aggressively cross-examined the complainant at the preliminary hearing. Numerous text messages and chats were put to the complainant in an attempt to establish that the complainant did not view A.R. as a person in authority and more importantly actively pursued him over the years for a relationship. The complainant admitted contacting A.R. “all the time” and expressing her love for him and wanting to be with him. She even attended his home and maintained a friendship with his wife and insisted on babysitting A.R.’s daughter. After cross-examination, the Crown Attorney reviewed the evidence and decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charges were discharged (meaning no evidence to commit to trial on).

Regina v. J.T. (2014)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, client was acquitted. Lawyer John Navarrete cross examined the complainant and after the evidence was closed, the Judge stated, “he could not believe one word” from the complainant. Mr. Navarrete in a careful cross examination demonstrated the complainant’s lack of credibility, reliability and believability. The accused had also been charged for Fail to Comply with a his terms of bail and his trial scheduled shortly after the assault trial, but the Crown decided to withdraw that charge because she no longer believed the complainant either.

Regina v. J.Y. (2014)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Forcible Confinement, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Pembroke, Ontario. J.Y. had arranged a date with a young lady through a social chat site. After the couple had relations, an argument ensued and the police were called. J.Y. was charged. At trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, directly challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability on many aspects of her story. It was established through cross-examination that there was no assault and no forcible confinement. Further, the complainant’s version of how the evening unfolded was not believable given the objective evidence and text messages. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that her version of events was unrealistic in relation to some admissions made by the complainant and the text messages. As a result J.Y. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. S. Z. (2014)

Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic) withdrawn prior to setting trial date. S.Z. was accused of assaulting his ex-wife on two separate occasions. The client had taken pictures of injuries he sustained during the course of the altercations. Just after the charges were laid, the complainant moved in Family Court for an order for exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through numerous prior emails from the complainant a pattern of threatening conduct wherein if S.Z. did not make a settlement with the complainant she was make false allegations against him. After detained discussions with the Crown and a lengthy judicial pre-trial, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that the complainant had serious credibility issues. In addition it was S.Z. who suffered injury and not the complainant. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J. S. (2014)

Client found not guilty of three counts of assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Guelph. J.S. was charged with having assaulted three bouncers by punching them and spitting blood at them while at a nightclub. Five security personnel from the bar and three police officers testified for the prosecution. Interestingly there were no witnesses from the bar other than police and security. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officer in charge and all witnesses on the deficient investigation in relation to not taking statements from any “independent” witnesses and the lack of any surveillance footage of the alleged assaults. The bar had a digital security surveillance system yet there was NO video. Further, there were no photos of any alleged injuries. J.S. had sustained serious injury and Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined each prosecution witness on the photographs of J.S.’s injuries and asked which were responsible for the injuries. Not one prosecution witness would admit any punch or kick to J.S. during the alleged struggle. After extensive cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish numerous inconsistencies and the simple fact that certain prosecution witnesses were not being forthright in their evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. H.C. (2014)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was a front desk supervisor at a hotel in Toronto. A number of guests in a room were causing a disturbance. It was alleged that H.C. attended the room having known the occupants. While in the room, H.C. was alleged to have stayed in a separate room with a female guest and raped her. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined all crown witnesses and was able to establish serious inconsistencies in the evidence, evidence of collusion and tainted memory and clear implausibility of a number of aspects of the evidence of the complainant and one of the main supporting witnesses. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, defence counsel, was able to raise serious doubt about the truth of the complainant’s evidence and H.C. was found not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. W.A. (2014)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client, a taxi driver, was accused of sexually assaulting a customer who was seated in the front passenger seat of his car. At trial defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of issues, including her level of intoxication. The interior of the taxi cab has an in-car camera. The entire ride was digitally recorded. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and established that at the time the complainant made her allegation she was not aware of the presence of an in-car camera and therefore she did not know that the ride was captured digitally. Further, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s in-court testimony and her recorded interview with police. There was a motive to fabricate as the complainant was drunk at the time of the alleged incident and got angry at W.Q. because he was not able to take the complainant to her home address. The complainant did not want to pay for the taxi ride. W.A. was well prepared to give evidence at the trial. In its judgment, the Court found the complainant’s evidence unreliable. Further, the Court accepted the evidence of W.A. Accordingly, W.A. was acquitted of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.C. (2014)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault x 3 and Domestic Assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. D.C. was charged during the initial stages of a separation by his wife. His wife alleged that sometime in the fall of 2012 D.C. started to sexually assault her in order to convince her to move ahead with divorce proceedings. In January 7, 2013 D.C. was alleged to have not only sexually assaulted his wife but also forced her down on a bed and caused injury to her wrist. On January 7, 2013, the complainant left the house after the alleged assaults and went directly to her family law lawyer. On January 10, 2013 the complainant went to police and D.C. was charged with the four criminal offences. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, cross-examined the complainant on her family court filings including the initial application seeking sole custody of the children and the exclusive possession of the house. The Application, of course, included the charges but also allegations of ongoing abuse in the marriage. D.C. was not able to gain access to his children for several weeks after released on bail. Once an interim order was put in place, D.C. only had limited access to his children and was prevented from any access to the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish in cross-examination that the complainant knew the effect criminal charges would have on her success in obtaining full custody and exclusive possession of the home. Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish significant inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and her statement. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time preparing D.C. for his testimony. In the court’s decision, the judge accepted the evidence of D.C. and found serious concerns with the complainant’s evidence including the implausibility of her allegations. The court relied on the cross-examination of the complainant in concluding that D.C. had to be found not guilty.

Regina v. S.S. (2014)

Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted a pedestrian as a “road rage” incident. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the area where the offence was alleged to have been committed with the client. A re-enactment was done with photograph and video evidence of where the witnesses were standing. It was obvious that the witnesses could not have viewed anything much less seen what they stated in their statements. In addition, an investigator retained by the defence found an employee of a store that works right at the corner who had witnesses the incident. His version of the event was contradictory to the complainant’s version. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger turned over all defence evidence to the Crown. The Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2014)

Charges of Robbery x 4, Possession of Stolen Property, Utter Death threats, Mischief Under $5,000.00, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, and Use Imitation Firearm, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a date for trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized all the statements and evidence and drafted a chart in relation to the evidence and highlighted all the inconsistencies. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown assigned to the file the chart and explained in detail all of the deficits of the prosecution’s case. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a complete lack of credible reliable evidence and as a result the prosecutor agreed with defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on any of the charges. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2014)

Charges of Assault x 6 (Domestic), Sexual Assault x 2 (Domestic) and Fail to comply x 2 withdraw prior the commencement of the preliminary hearing. D.S. was charged by his ex-wife with historical allegations dating back almost six years prior to the couple’s separation. The charges were laid just after D.S. won a interim custody order in family court. The client immediately had difficulty retaining custody of his children once the charges were laid. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger worked with the family law counsel to gather up all of the complainant’s affidavits and pleadings. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained a recording of a song that the complainant had the children sing to D.S. just after separation about how he was sick in the head. Discussions occurred between the assigned Crown and Joseph Neuberger due to concerns for the well being of the children. As a result, Joseph Neuberger provided a detailed chart of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence between her statement and the various affidavits filed in Family Court, a recording of the son and Joseph Neuberger further provided the full draft cross-examination to the Crown for her review. After discussions, the Crown agreed with Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2014)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client had an ongoing relationship with a young woman who professed to be 17 years of age. Unfortunately, she lied and was under the legal age of consent. The mother of the complainant discovered the relationship and contacted police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger researched the social media postings of the complainant including dating sites and discovered numberous profiles with the age of 17. In addition, the complainant seemed to suggest in her statement to police that she may have lied about her age to J.L. In addition, the defence disclosed the proposed evidence of J.L. to the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. K.B. (2014)

Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. K.B. was alleged to have sexually assaulted his granddaughter. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed cross-examination at trial of each crown witness to establish significant inconsistencies in the story of the complainant; evidence that showed that K.B., with in a moment of the alleged assault, was actually in another room and seemed “normal”. Finally, and most significant, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able establish that the circumstances in which the alleged sexual assault was to have occurred were implausible and stretched the bounds of imagination. Joseph Neuberger also carefully prepared K.B. for giving evidence and at trial. When K.B. testified, the judge while rendering his reasons for the verdict accepted the evidence of K.B. As a result, K.B. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. D.S. (2014)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the assigned crown regarding the minor nature of the allegation and in fact the implausibility of how the complainant explained how the alleged assault occurred. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. S.X.U. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault x 3, and sexual interference x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged historical assaults while living as a tenant with her mother in the basement of S.X.U’s home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a detailed cross-examination of the complainant along with taking statements from two crucial defence witnesses who were to testify at trial. Joseph Neuberger was able at trial to establish to the Crown major inconsistencies and implausible facts that resulted in the Crown re-assessing the case and concluding that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was accused of luring a female under the guise of a job as a nanny. While in the home during the “interview” he was alleged to have sexually assaulted her. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the statement establishing internal inconsistencies and the complaint was reluctant to being cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger. There was an issue of the complainant actually soliciting during the interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment establishing no sexual deviant tendencies and on that basis the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond simply to have no contact with the complainant. The charge was formally withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2013)

Charges of harassing phone calls and criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was accused of making numerous calls to her ex-spouse and of harassment. The defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, obtained the criminal record of the accused and then via an application under the Freedom on Information Act, obtained the occurrences and most importantly the notes of the officers regarding the past criminal record. Notably there was history of fabrication. In addition no alleged messages left by the client were ever recorded and no photo’s taken of my client attending at his place of residence. After discussions with the Crown, Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.W.K. (2013)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault and 8 counts of sexual assault withdrawn. The client was accused of touching a female on a TTC train. The female took a picture of the male and when reported the same to police, the police did a press release and 9 other people came forward to allege similar assaults. Once full disclosure was provided, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, chartered out all of the statements and identification evidence to establish that there not only was tainting of identification as a result of the police’s press release but also many of the complainants gave descriptions that did not fit the client. Further, the Crown wanted to pursue a similar act application to show that the method of assault was similar through all of the counts and as such, there could be enough evidence of identification. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought statistical data from the TTC about the frequency, numbers and details of sexual assaults on trains and/buses. Not surprisingly the rate was very high and showed that almost 90 per cent all involved the exact same method of assault and as such, there was no basis to a similar act application.

Regina v. N.R. (2013)

Charge of assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The client was in an altercation with a female complainant that seemed largely unexplained. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed by a forensic psychiatrist and it was discovered that the client had been suffering from a major mental illness for some time that was not diagnosed and not treated. As a result, the client was assessed and began treatment. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a report from the psychiatrist and provided same to the Crown. As a result of a number of discussions, it was agreed that the charge be withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having allegedly lured a woman into his home under the pretense of a job as a nanny. During the interview, the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. Investigation by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger in the social media postings of the complainant established that she was never looking for any position as a nanny but had been made statements contrary to what she alleged to police. In addition, statements taken by the defence from the security staff at the building where the client resided indicated that when the complainant attended she was dressed not appropriately for an interview and when leaving was in a happy mood asking them to order her a taxi. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment to show that he was and is of low to no risk to females. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. H.V. (2013)

Client was charged with various sexual assault allegations made by 2 female family members that were historical in nature and spanned a lengthy time period. After a 4 day trial and extensive cross-examination of the Complainants by lawyer Stacey Nichols, as well as presentation of Defence evidence of other family members which refuted the Complainant’s allegations, client was acquitted of all charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. A.G. (2013)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant during the course of a bitter divorce alleged that at an exchange of their child under the interim custody arrangement, A.G. assaulted her while she was holding the child. Fortunately, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to track down two civilian witnesses who provided statements that the complainant was acting in a highly belligerent and volatile state. In addition, recordings of the compliant made during arguments with the A.G. were turned over to the Crown to establish the aggressive nature of the complainant’s interaction with A.G. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown withdrew the charge on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. K.M. (2013)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Hamilton. Client was charged by his girlfriend with having assaulted her on at least two occasions. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a cross-examination based on numerous subtle, but important, inconsistencies and drafted a chart of these inconsistencies based upon her statement, occurrence reports and her 911 call. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from two witnesses in relation to a subsequent occurrence in order to establish that she fabricated a further allegation of breach of K.M’s bail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed chart of all of the inconsistencies, details as to her motive to lie and a draft of the cross-examination. As a result, the Crown assessed the case and determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.R. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault and threatening harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was a young person alleged to have engaged in “bullying” activity including a sexual assault and threatening of the complainant while at school. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger critically assessed the statement of the complainant along with the statements of a number of witnesses, and then obtained statements from teachers and other witnesses in relation to the actions and behaviors of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with an extensive package of statements and a detailed letter outlining why the complainant lacked credibility and why there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After several pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, the charges were withdrawn on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.C. (2013)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial. R.C. was charged with allegedly assaulted his girlfriend after she accused him of cheating on her. After the charge was laid the complainant continued to text and communicate with R.C. and demand funds for some alleged debt that he owed. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client all of the communications and further had statements taken from individuals who the complainant had spoken to about the allegations and made disparaging remarks and contradictory remarks about the allegations. Joseph Neuberger put together a defence disclosure package of all the communications and statements and provided same to the crown attorney. After extensive discussions, the Crown concluded that the complainant had no credibility and that there may have been financial motivation and a revenge aspect to the allegation in the first place. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.M. (2013)

Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and forcible confinement after trial. R.M. was alleged to have forced his ex-girlfriend into his house, locked the doors and held her against the door while arguing with her about the demise of their relationship. During this alleged altercation, R.M. was injured and the complainant sustained no injuries. After Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that R.M., after having been struck and started to bleed, told the complainant that he was going to call police and asked the complainant to leave. It was after this that the complainant first called police and did so while remaining on R.M.”s porch, which under cross-examined was used to show that the complainant was not fearful (otherwise she would have sought refuge in her car or some other safe location) and instead contacted police in order to pre-empt her from being charged for having assaulted R.M. Other significant factors were raised during cross-examination that undermined the complainant’s version of events. R.M. was well prepared by Joseph Neuberger and testified in a straightforward and believable manner. As such, the trial judge found R.M. credible and R.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

R. v. T(L.) 2013

The Appellant was convicted at trial of Assault and Assault With a Weapon as a result of an altercation during a domestic dispute when a baseball bat was thrown. In the Court of Appeal, lawyer successfully argued that the conduct proven by the Crown did not amount to an assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this argument and the Appellant’s convictions for Assault and Assault with a Weapon were overturned and an acquittal entered.

Regina v. M.Z. (2013)

Client charged with alleged sexually assaulting his wife, withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on important inconsistencies between her 911 call and the statements she provided to police. Mr. Neuberger was able to establish that there were financial motivations to the complainant making the allegation of sexual assault and in fact the translated statement, as the original statement was in Punjabi, was not accurate which gave rise to the inherent unreliability of her initial allegations. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.B. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault and domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his girlfriend while in a hotel and when she fled grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back to the room. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to have the complainant re-interviewed during which the complainant recanted the allegation and also confirmed her state of high intoxication. The defence obtained copies of her bar tab establishing that the complainant had consumed a large volume of alcohol close in time to the alleged sexual assault. Further, an independent witness who allegedly observed the grabbing of the hair, was inconsistent in his statement, and was contradicted in his timing given the re-interview of the complainant. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, the client agreed to attend an expert retained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger for counselling and after completion of 12 sessions, the client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn

Regina v. S.R.X. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman who was passed out and later died from a drug overdose. The police were called the next day when the young woman’s body was found and S.R.X. was interviewed and charged based on the content of his interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the client’s statement prior to the first set date and was able to conduct an early pre-trial with the assigned Crown. The statement was not admissible as it was very clear that S.R.X. was struggling during the interview to properly express himself in English and thus the statement ought to have been taken in Mandarin, the client’s first language. Further, when the client obtained legal advise from duty counsel, the advise was also provided in English and the client had expressed to the police that he did not fully understand what duty counsel had explained. As such, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the client did not obtain proper legal advise breaching his Charter right and that in any event the statement was so poor given the problems in language thus resulting in the Crown withdrawing the charge on the first appearance in court.

Regina v. J.C.K. (2013)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Disobey Court Order withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. The client had been charged previously by his former wife with assault related allegations and after being acquitted at trial was charged one year later with the new allegation of assault and disobey family court order. Joseph Neuberger, counsel for J.C.K. took the position that the complainant had fabricated the entire incident. There was no supporting evidence and Joseph Neuberger acquired an Affidavit from a former witness used by the complainant who recently confirmed in the Affidavit, under oath, that the complainant had asked her to lie in the previous case. The judgement in the previous case specifically referred to the complainant having fabricated evidence and being an unreliable witness. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided extensive materials to the Crown, including a copy of the transcript of Joseph Neuberger’s cross-examination of the complainant in the previous trial along with the judgment in order to establish that the complainant has absolutely no credibility. After several pre-trial meetings the Crown, the prosecution decided to withdraw the charges based on the material provided and confirmed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. G.M. (2013)

Charges of assault (domestic), threaten death and mischief under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial. The evidence as disclosed by the prosecution was contradictory as one witness who allegedly observed the assault gave a completely different version of how the argument and assault started. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had additional statements taken to further undermine the statement of the complainant. All statements were disclosed during pre-trial discussions with the Crown. After several pre-trial meetings, the Crown agreed with the defence position and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.G. (2013)

Client found innocent of domestic charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Threaten Death x 2, and Disobey Court Order x 2 after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant had charged T.G. on two prior occasions both of which resulted in withdrawals. The complainant alleged in February of 2011 that T.G. committed a brutal assault five days after she was removed from the home owned by T.G. by police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought an abuse application for a stay of proceedings alleging that the Crown ought to have withdrew the charges based on the lack of credibility of the complainant and thus an improper assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, actions taken by the complainant and the police after the laying of the charges were quite abusive. For example, the complainant alleged that T.G. had stolen a bed that belonged to the complainant for their son. The complainant produced an invoice dated June 9, 2009. Based on the receipt police attended the client’s mother’s home and essentially threaten charges unless she would turn over the bed to the complainant. Under cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger asked the complainant to identify the date of the invoice which was June of 2009 and then to read out the price paid. The price paid clearly stated a number including HST. HST only came into effect in July of 2010. The invoice had to have been made up by the complainant and the officer who acted on the invoice clearly paid no attention to whether the invoice was authentic. Detailed cross-examination by Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger yielded countless inconsistencies and implausible answers that led the Judge to find T.G. innocent and to completely reject the evidence of the complainant. For details of the abuse application see below.
Click Here To Read the Abuse Application

Regina v. I.H. (2013)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial. I.H. was charged with having assaulted his wife and two children during the course of the marriage. At the dissolution of the marriage, the complainant left the matrimonial home and went to live in a shelter with the two children. At that time the complainant alleged the abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the statements of the complainants transcribed and then carefully analyzed each statement. At which time Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a chart of inconsistencies that not only undermined the reliability of the complaints’ evidence but were quite implausible. Consequently all charges were withdrawn .

Regina v. Z.M, (2013)

Historical charges of sexual assault x 3, sexual interference x 3, and forcible confinement withdrawn after three day preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger first took statements from other potential defence witnesses and gathered demonstrative evidence that limited the timing the allegations could have occurred. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted an extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant raising many issues of not only inconsistencies between her in court testimony and her statements to police, but robust cross-examination on issues of how implausible some of the facts were including where one of the alleged sexual assaults was alleged to have occurred including the manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger called evidence from the complainant’s father to also establish collusion and one other witness to establish motive for the complainant to have fabricated the allegations. As a result, all charges were withdrawn after completion of the preliminary hearing.

Regina v. R.K., (2013)

Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the Crown regarding the evidence as described by the complainant her statement. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was an ulterior motive to the allegations, namely an attempt by the complainant to thwart R.K.’s access to his child. Given other evidence presented by the defence including an assessment, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges .

Regina v. M.W., (2013)

Client found not guilty of charges of Forcible Entry, Unlawful Confinement, and Assault with a Weapon, after a two week jury trial. M.W. was a police officer who was charged as a result of entering a crime scene without a warrant. M.W. was charged with another officer. After attending an emergency call wherein a male was severely beaten, M.W. gathered information that led them to a house that was the crime scene. Due to the fear for the destruction of evidence, the two officers entered the home without a warrant. A complaint was made by one occupant of the house and the two officers were charged. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger argued at trial that there were ample grounds for M.W. to enter the home and there were genuine urgent circumstances that necessitated the entry to the home without a warrant. After a two week trial, M.W. along with his fellow officer was acquitted by the jury.
Read Article

Regina v. A.E., (2013)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.E. was alleged to have lured a young women to his house under the pretence of a job interview. The two exchanged information via Kijiji and then arranged an interview for a date in February of 2012. A.E. was alleged to have used an alias for his name. While at A.E.’s residence, the complainant alleged that she was applying for a cleaning job and she was made to clean a bathroom. During the cleaning, A.E. was alleged to have touched the complainant inappropriately and to have made sexual comments. Further, after the cleaning in the bathroom, the complainant alleged she was invited into the bedroom to continue the interview where she was sexually assaulted including forced intercourse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant establishing additional facts that supported the defence theory that the complainant did not intend to interview for a cleaning job but in fact while in the home, the complainant acted in a sexually provocative manner and eventually proposition A.E. Joseph Neuberger established significant inconsistencies in cross-examination of the complainant and slowly gained crucial admissions from the complainant about acting sexually provocatively and after having told A.E. that she “hated cleaning” that she then told A.E. that “there were other ways for her to make money”. Joseph Neuberger established that these crucial admissions had been intentionally left out of the complainants statement to police. Based upon a thorough and highly effective cross-examination of the complainant, without the client testifying, the Court found A.E. not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.S. (2012)

Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference. Lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined the Complainant over a 2 day period and also presented defence evidence showing that the allegations could not have occurred as alleged by the Complainant. Client acquitted of both charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. R.M. and W.M. (2012)

Charges of assault causing bodily harm dismissed after lengthy discussions with the Crown. The two clients were charged with a fight arising from a dispute at a Toronto nightclub. The evidence was contradictory but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained further evidence demonstrating the complainant as having been involved in an attack on R.M. and W.M. which supported the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and the two clients merely acted in self-defence. Accordingly, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. T.N. (2012)

Charges of Threaten Death x 2 and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements of independent witnesses and the video surveillance of the location where the incident was alleged to have occurred. The evidence established material inconsistencies with the two complainant’s version of events. As a result of the defence investigation, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G.A. (2012)

Charges of Threaten Death x 3, Assault x 2, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain a copy of a 42 minute taped argument between the complainant and M.G.A.. The tape disclosed that the complainant was extremely aggressive, threatening and out of control while the client was at all times controlled. Two other recorded arguments further added to the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and made up the allegations because the client ended the 16 year marriage. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the crown that based on the disclosed evidence there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were this withdrawn.

Regina v. D.K. (2012)

Charges of mischief and indecent act withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The client was alleged to have exposed himself while leaving a subway on a path that was dark with a potential female victim that was several metres ahead of the client. The evidence presented was conflicting in whether it was possible for the potential victim to have seen anything. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic assessment to rule out any sexual deviations and provided the report to the Crown showing that there was no such issues and no risk to the community. After numerous meetings with the Crown and judicial pre-trials, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. B.L.C. (2012)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a female friend after they attended a casino and went to the hotel to rest before returning to Toronto. The allegations were very serious and reported to police later that night. The complainant had a boyfriend and when she returned home an argument ensued about why she went with B.L.C. to the casino. It was during this argument that the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. In the complainant’s statement, it was alleged that B.L.C. made numerous affectionate moves on the complainant, while in the casino, that were flatly rejected by the complainant, including the complainant intentionally standing away from B.L.C. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the surveillance footage from the Casino. Joseph Neuberger then charted out the alleged acts in the statement with the surveillance footage. There were numerous inconsistencies, including footage showing the complainant standing beside B.L.C. rubbing his back and stroking his neck. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, commenced cross-examining the complainant with the inconsistencies. Unbelievably, the police never sought the surveillance and once disclosed by the defence, it was not reviewed. After one day of the preliminary hearing, the Crown had serious concerns about the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger, and his paralegal Grace Condello, prepared a new chart outlining the in court testimony as contrasted with both the original statement and surveillance, and then provided the chart to the Crown. As a result of the obvious inconsistencies, it was apparent that the complainant may have fabricated the entire allegation. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2012)

Client was found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed pressing cross-examination of the complainant, yielding numerous material inconsistencies and eventually an admission that both allegations may have been a figment of her imagination. Further cross-examination established that she was unsure if anything happened and may have just been telling stories to get attention. The two other witnesses called by the Crown were also extensively cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger in a manner that established that the complainant both before and after the alleged sexual assaults did not show any distress and in fact appeared to like the accused and wanted to spend time with the accused. No defence was called and the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.K. (2012)

Charges of Mischief under $5,000.00 and Assault Peace Officer, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with allegedly assaulting an off-duty police officer who attempted to arrest the J.K. after J.K. allegedly damaged his car. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed given certain issues pertaining to the client’s mental health and after a series of pre-trials with the Crown and the client undertaking a meaningful course of counselling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M.(2012)

Client charged with assault with a weapon on her ex-husband withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was separated and living at another address. While returning the children after a weekend, the client saw the girlfriend of the complainant (ex-husband) in the matrimonial home. The client got upset and the complainant grabbed the client and physically removed her from the house. While being dragged out of the house, the client hit the complainant with a toy water gun. The complainant called police. Shockingly the client was actually charged with assault with a weapon. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the crown and was able to establish that the separation agreement stipulated that she still had rights to be at the matrimonial home and the ex-husband by physically removing the complainant committed an assault to which the client was legally permitted to defend herself. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Thomas (2012)

Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to young complainant after 5 day trial during which counsel Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined complainant, complainant’s sister and mother. Ms. Nichols cross-examination revealed numerous inconsistencies and problems with the Crown’s evidence. The trial judge ultimately found that he could not rely on the evidence and all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Purcaru (2012)

Client acquitted of domestic related charges after 2 days of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Complainant, who was the Accused person’s ex-wife, was cross-examined extensively and was confronted with prior affidavits from family court proceedings which revealed serious problems with the veracity of her evidence. Charges dismissed.

Regina v. J.T. (2012)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, prior to the preliminary hearing. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting one of his daughters. The allegations arose through disclosure by a pastor in the church where the family attended. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the statements of the complainant, and the notes of the pastor and CAS. After having all statements transcribed, Joseph Neuberger, was able to analyze the statements and provided the Crown with a detailed chart of material internal inconsistencies arising not only from the deficient interviewing but tainting by the pastor who made the first disclosure to CAS and then police. In addition, the complainant was re-interviewed through the defence investigation. The re-interview shed light on a number of issues going to the reliability of the initial statement to police and CAS. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.L.H.F. (2012)

Charges of sexual assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was charged with allegedly having sexually groped two females, and possibly more, over a period of several weeks. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic psychiatrist to assess the client, and after careful review of the evidence and the assessment, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a mental health diversion as the client was suffering from a disorder that impacted his ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.R. and D.R. (2012)

Charges of mischief under $5,000.00 and assault (domestic) withdrawn on the second trial date, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. H.R. and D.R. were charged by H.R.’s former wife after a heating argument because the complainant covertly recorded private discussions between H.R. and D.R. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that the complainant had committed a criminal offence by intercepting private communications. In addition, the complainant, in her divorce action, claimed $100,000.00 for damages arising from prior alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with the family lawyer representing H.R. and obtained the transcript of an examination on the divorce action. As a result, the defence was able to establish material inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the complainant. Further, expert psychiatric evidence obtained by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger demonstrated that the complainant was acting in a highly provocative manner prior to and during her recording of the private discussion in an attempt to provoke a confrontation for the purposes of her laying charges. As a result of the damaged credibility of the complainant, the Crown withdrew all charges just prior to the commencement of the trial.

Regina v. Y.I.K. (2012)

Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic), Assault with a Weapon and Fail to Comply x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial meetings. The client was charged by his ex-wife and oldest son with a series of assault related offences and was alleged to have breached his bail once his was released from jail on the initial set of charges. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain additional and valuable information through the family court proceedings, including Affidavit evidence that provided the basis to establish a motive to fabricate. In addition, one of the assault allegations and the fail to comply charges arose from alleged contact at an examination during a family court proceeding. Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend the proceeding, and was alleged to have spoken with and assaulted his son outside the examination room. Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials and Judicial pre-trials and successfully convinced the Crown that any alleged breach and assault while Mr. Y.I.K. was attending the examination was not only not a crime but was evidence of a “set up” by the complainant and the son. Both the son and the complainant (ex-wife) were not required to attend the examination but Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend. Thus, by attending, the complainant and the son intended to initiate contact in order to get Mr. Y.I.K. charged with more offences. Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the family court documents and Affidavits and provided a detailed account of events that not only undermined the prosecution evidence, but also established a clear motive to fabricate. As a result, all charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. C.(C) (2012)

The client was charged with a sexual assault, and Neuberger & Partners reviewed the disclosure carefully, and had the complainant’s video statement transcribed. Neuberger & Partners did a complete work-up of the file, and gave his opinion to the Crown that lack of consent could never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 months after the charge was laid the Crown Attorney agreed with & Partners and the charge was completely withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. and R.S. (2012)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The clients were charged with assault related offences arising from an altercation with security staff at BMO field after a soccer game. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete obtained additional statements of witnesses that undermined the facts as described by the main prosecution witnesses. In addition, the prosecution was unable to produce surveillance footage of the event that should have been preserved. As a result of evidence contradicting the main crown witnesses and the lack of an objective recoding of the alleged event, both clients signed common law peace bonds to keep the peace and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.M. (2012)

Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have been involved in a verbal and physical altercation with two female complainants after leaving a bar in the downtown Toronto club district. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from staff at the bar and independent witnesses who described the event differently than the complainants in their statements to police. In fact, evidence obtained by Joseph Neuberger, strongly suggested the complainants and her friends were the aggressors. After detailed pre-trial discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges if W.M. signed a common law peace bond. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. B. P (2012)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. After reviewing disclosure, Defence lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish to the Crown Attorney that there were a number of frailties to the prosecution’s case including the possibility that this may be a case of mistaken identity. Accordingly, charges were withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial.

Regina v. P.W. (2012)

Client charged with sexual assault and sexual interference x 2, arising from an alleged inappropriate relationship with a student. The allegations encompassed a prolonged period of inappropriate contact including touching that spanned several months, including instances when away on trips with the Scouts. The client was suspended from teaching and had endured months of a lengthy investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a thorough review of all statements obtained in the criminal investigation and then conducted interviews of many potential defence witnesses that also gave extensive background information on the complainant. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, aggressively cross-examined the complainant to establish a motive to fabricate arising from P.W. firing the complainant from a part-time job and the removal of a lap top computer that the complainant wanted to keep. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain admissions from the complainant as to his own history of telling stories and lies to meet his own needs, and established clear inconsistencies on material facts. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the presiding Judge commented that there was a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate his evidence and that the complainant was not a credible witness. Following the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger, that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and that P.W. was wrongly accused. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A. H (2012)

Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference was found Not Guilty after a five day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence Lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish, through vigorous cross-examination of the complainant, significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, undermining the credibility of the allegations. The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainant was unsafe to rely upon and A.H. was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. T. P (2012)

Client charged with Assault (X2), Assault with Weapon and Uttering Threat (X2) withdrawn at trial. After successfully arguing against the Crown’s Khan Application, which sought to introduce the complainant’s videotaped statement into evidence, Defence Lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2012)

Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order/peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant sought to restrain M.S. from any contact with her and their biological daughter who M.S. was seeking access to through the family court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the complete history of all proceedings between the parties and after careful review of the complainant’s statement, drafted a detailed response to the application outlining why the allegations and the request for a restraining order was an indirect attempt to thwart M.S.’s access to his daughter. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the assigned crown attorney that the complainant was attempting to alienate M.S. from his daughter and there were no genuine allegations. Accordingly the application was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.P. (2011)

Charge of assault with a weapon (domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the 911 call and the statement of the complainant prior to the first court appearance. After detailed review of the prosecution evidence, and with extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and in the circumstances of the alleged assault, it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. J(W) (2011)

Client was facing charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after argument with wife. On trial date lawyer subpoenaed records from cell phone company casting doubt on complainant’s version of events. Crown withdrew charge.

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

Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was charged with a bar related fight between the complainant, M.D.R. and two other persons, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a concussion, broken shoulder and various bruising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the witnesses and sought through the defence investigation statements of other independent witnesses who had viewed the altercation, as well as security video recordings from a nearby McDonald’s restaurant. Based upon the defence investigation, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that M.D.R. was only acting in self-defence of himself and his two friends as the complainant had been the aggressor. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

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

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault withdrawn after completion of three day preliminary hearing prior to setting a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. J.S. was charged with historical allegations arising from his care of a child during a four year relationship with the child’s mother. The allegations arose five years after the end of the relationship, by way of disclosure to a caregiver at a time when the child was under the care of the CAS. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation during which various records were obtained through the search of court records relating to the child complainant. Mr Neuberger found extensive details about the complainant, the mother and other information including psychological issues that would have a very significant impact on the child complainant’s ability to perceive, recollect and more importantly to tell the truth. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the child complainant, the mother of the complainant and other crown witnesses which yielded material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. After the preliminary hearing, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger wrote a detailed letter to the crown analyzing the case and establishing that the crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Superior court prior to setting the date for trial.

Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview various witnesses who were alleged to have seen portions of the altercation between J.B. and the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain statements from the bouncers of the bar where the altercation occurred. Mr. Neuberger conducted extensive pre-trials with the assigned crown, and provided the crown with statements taken during the defence investigation along with a detailed letter drafted by Joseph Neuberger outlining the deficiencies in the crowns case, as the defence asserted J.B. acted in self-defence. Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Neuberger and the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. M.(S.) 2011

Client charged with Sexual Assault. On Preliminary Hearing date lawyer convinces Crown that the case is weak and there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Charge withdrawn.

Regina v. KYK (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal on the basis that the client sign a peace bond and the complainant and the client complete 12 counselling sessions.

Regina v. X.W. and Q.Z. (2011)

Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients’ rights under section 11(b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried. The two clients were originally charged in October of 2009 with an alleged violent assault of a neighbour. The matter came to trial in February of 2011. However, due to the shortage of Mandarin accredited interpreters, the trial which was scheduled for two days could not be completed and new dates had to be selected in order to have an accredited interpreter available for trial. Due to the inability of the Crown to provide a trial in a reasonable time with an appropriate accredited Mandarin interpreter, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a motion to stay proceedings based upon an unreasonable delay. The judge agreed with the defence motion and accordingly the charges against the two defendants were stayed.

Regina v. R.L. (2011)

Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to demonstrate to the Crown a number of serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in comparison to other statements obtained through the defence investigation. Given the nature of the inconsistencies, and the defence statements, it was negotiated that R.L. sign a peace bond and the charges were accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. N.B. (2011)

Charges of Assault x 2, Threaten Death x 2, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained email and text communications from the complainant (ex-wife) to the client, N.B., pre-dating and during the time frame of the alleged offences. The content of the communications undermined a significant portion of the evidence of the complainant as to the nature of the relationship. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown significant inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K. (2011)

Client acquitted of Prowl by Night and Criminal Harassment x 2 (domestic related) after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.K. was alleged to have went on the property of his ex-wife and stalked her. The complainant also alleged a history of emotional and physical abuse. The history was relied upon by the Crown to establish the reasonable fear of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully investigated all historical allegations, in particular an allegation made by the complainant in the family court proceedings. Joseph Neuberger obtained all police occurrence reports and police notes, including evidence of two prior charges of the complainant in which the complainant resolved the charges by entering into peace bonds. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her evidence and on contradictory evidence obtained by Neuberger during the defence investigation. The defence also called evidence of two police officers to contradict the complainant. The judgment of the court found that the complainant was not a credible witness and in fact had lied in her family court affidavit. The Court went on to further find that there was no credible evidence to support the complainant’s evidence of C.K. ever having been violent. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all counts.

Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to persuade the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered into a peace bond and as such the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2011)

Client found not guilty of charges of Assault, Criminal Harassment x 2, Harassing phone calls, and Threaten Death x 2 after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was charged with a number of offences arising from the ending of his relationship with his spouse. The allegations included records of hundreds of phone calls and emails from S.S. that were allegedly directed at harassing the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and obtained recovery of additional email and text communications between the complainant and the client, S.S. In total there were well over 500 emails and text messages. Joseph Neuberger created three briefs of emails and text messages for cross-examination aimed at undermining the complainant’s evidence that the abuse was for the entirety of the relationship and continued while the couple was ending their relationship. In addition, one email recovered showed that there was in fact an assault perpetrated by the complainant on the client at or near the time of the alleged charge of assault that S.S. was charged with. Detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the complainant over two trial days established that in fact the complainant had only provided the police emails that were favourable to her version of events. In fact the complainant did not disclose contradictory emails. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the couple argued via email and text message about almost every conceivable issue in their relationship without the complainant ever mentioning anything about any abuse. Many of the emails put to the complainant in cross-examination established that complainant held S.S. in high regard and was very thankful for his patience with her issues. As a result of the cross-examination, S.S. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. S.N. (2011)

Client found not guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault (Domestic related charges) after a 7 day jury trial in the Superior Court in Toronto. Client was alleged to have brutally assaulted and sexually assaulted his common law spouse over a period of three years. The prosecution called the complainant, the complainant’s mother in relation to timely disclosure to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and a counsellor who had seen S.N. during the relationship wherein S.N. had admitted to “hitting” the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed all of the pleadings and affidavits in the family court proceeding. The complainant had made an allegation in the family court proceeding of a specific instance of child abuse that was reported to the police. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the police records including the police notes through a Freedom of Information Act application. The records specifically refuted the allegation of child abuse. In addition, certain evidence of the complainant was in contradiction to other evidence gathered through the defence investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the two main prosecution witnesses, and through cross-examination was able to establish three instances of fabrication of allegations, and establish collusion between the two prosecution witnesses. Joseph Neuberger alleged in the defence that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in order to obtain sole custody of the one child of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger delivered a detailed two hour closing to the jury and after three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. J.N. v. Durham Regional Police 2011

Durham Regional Police ordered to expunge record of a withdrawn domestic assault charge from their Criminal Information Request database. Neuberger & Partners appear before Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2011)

Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of bank records and text messages supporting the defence theory that the allegations were motivated by the complainant’s desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.F. (2011)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful analysis of the evidence, and during lengthy negotiations with the Crown’s office, was able to establish that the facts as disclosed by the complainant, did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to commit a sexual assault but rather were misconstrued by the complainant as to the client’s intended actions. Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.W.G. (2011)

Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After extensive review of the prosecution evidence including surveillance recordings from the locations where the acts were alleged to have occurred (TTC stations) by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and detailed cross-examination of the complainant giving rise to serious inconsistencies between the evidence and the surveillance recordings, the Crown agreed with the defence that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.

Regina v. T.B. (2011)

Client acquitted of sexual assault after two week jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. T.B., a professional, had met the complainant in 2005 and began and productive business relationship with her. On the night of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant along with two other business associates attended T.B.’s home for a dinner. During the evening all parties drank wine. The complainant and her professed boyfriend (one of the business associates) slept at T.B.’s residence due to being intoxicated. The complainant was woken the next morning by her boyfriend and found to be naked. The complainant alleged that T.B. had sexually assaulted her during the night when she was unconscious. The police took a statement from the complainant and her boyfriend, and then arrested T.B.. Sexual assault kit examination revealed DNA including semen that was found to be consistent with T.B.’s DNA profile. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had a private investigator take a statement from the remaining person who attended the dinner but was not interviewed by police. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, the complainant’s boyfriend, crown experts including a toxicologist and nurse, in accordance with the defence theory that the complainant had consented to sexual contact. In addition, the defence raised a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a “blackout” as opposed to being unconscious. The defence was able to establish significant inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, as well as establish the collusion of the complainant and her boyfriend in the content of their evidence. In closing argument to the jury, Joseph Neuberger raised significant issues regarding the lack of important evidence including failure by the police to search T.B.’s residence and the Crown’s failure to tendered important forensic evidence. After 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. Q.P. (2011)

Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant’s story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2010)

Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.’s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

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

Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. M.V. (2010)

Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L. H. (2010)

Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete’s request. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. L.S. (2010)

Client was charged with assault on a family member in Toronto. Matter was set down for trial. Mr. Navarrete filed various Charter applications in defence of his client. After the Crown reviewed the case and the applications, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a sexual assault at his place of employment involving a customer. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges. Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney’s Office to discuss various legal issues surrounding the charge, facts and the client’s previous exemplary life. After which, the Crown agreed to withdraw the sexual assault charge and the client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L.D. (2010)

Charges of breach of recognizance stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. On the morning of trial, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown’s case against L.D. despite the fact that the complainant was insistent on proceeding with the case. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. P. D. (2010)

Client acquitted on charges of breach of recognizance (X3) stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. During the trial, Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the complainant on her allegations and had her admit that she forgot very important and serious details. Ultimately, the presiding Judge did not find her evidence reliable or credible to warrant a conviction.

R. v. D.G. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault was withdrawn at the early stages of the criminal proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office and was able to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown’s case. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.G. return to his home with his partner. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that the charges would be withdrawn upon completion of PARS and that the client would enter a peace bond. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

Regina v. D.M. (2010)

Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference after a three day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Belleville. The client was charged after having met the complainant through an internet chat site. The complainant had mislead D.M. about her real age. Police were called by the parents of the complainant when she failed to return home after a walk. When the police found the complainant in the company of D.M., the police conducted an investigation into the complainant’s activities with D.M. and as a result charges were laid. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols worked carefully through three detailed statements by the complainant, volumes of text message and internet chat logs, and a large volume of disclosure including forensic and crime scene pictures, videos and reports. The defence brought several motions at trial to exclude various pieces of the prosecution’s evidence, including a re-enactment video, and the evidence of three witnesses who were called to provide age recognition evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger assailed photographs taken of the complainant several hours after the meeting with D.M. which were tendered by the Crown to establish that given the complainant’s youthful appearance, D.M. failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the complainant pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the police had failed to protect the continuity of the complainant’s appearance sufficiently, resulting in pictures that were not representative of the complainant’s appearance earlier in the evening when she met with D.M. The defence further argued that given the content of the text and internet chats, as well as the evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence to support a defence of honest but mistaken belief of age, wherein D.M. had indeed taken all reasonable steps. There were unusual and unique facts that the defence was able to present to successfully challenge the prosecution’s case and as a result D.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. G.B. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained an computer expert to recover deleted data and emails from the complainant, establishing a strong motive to fabricate an allegation of assault in order to gain an advantage in the family court proceedings. As a result of the defence investigation, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.Z. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and forcible confinement, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, prior to trial. Based upon the defence investigation, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all three charges, particularly in light of inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement and emails sent between the parties at the time of the alleged offences.

Regina v. A.H. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, prior to trial. The client was charged with a sexual assault in relation to his sister-in-law. The allegations were only disclosed to police several months after the alleged assault. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through the defence investigation that the reporting of the allegation coincided with a particular argument in the family, resulting in the client’s wife and sister, the complainant, becoming estranged. As a result of additional inconsistencies undermining the credibility of the complainant, and the concern regarding the veracity of the compliant, the charges were withdrawn prior to the trial date.

Regina v. A.B. (2010)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault x 4 (Domestic) and Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance x 3, were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, just prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted several extensive judicial pre-trials in order to set out the basis of the defence, in particular securing evidence establishing that the main charges were part of an elaborate scheme in which fabricated allegations were used to secure exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and to gain an advantage in Family court. Joseph Neuberger established a number of inconsistencies that significantly undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result of extensive defence work, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Gilbert (2010)

Client of acquitted of domestic assault after lengthy cross-examination of the Complainant and other witnesses revealed material inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence.

Regina v. J.H. (2010)

Charge of assault bodily harm (domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the complainant had been the party to initiate a fist fight with J.H. As a result, J.H. reacted in self-defence in repelling the attack. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn at trial.

Regina v. T.G. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged an assault just prior to the commencement of a family court motion in which the accused, T.G., sought custody and access to their son. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain information related to charges that the complainant was facing along with a large volume of family court documents that demonstrated several material inconsistencies in the complainant’s story. In addition, the case took 16 months to come to trial. As a result, a defence application motion was filed by Mr. Neuberger to stay the proceedings for delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Charter, which protects the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In light of the strong defence application for a stay and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. T.H. (2010)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Mischief Under withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the allegation of assault was in fact the client repelling the complainant when she had initially assaulted him. The evidence of the complainant was ambiguous on the actual sequence of the alleged assault and after careful analysis of the statement, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that given the client’s defensive actions, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.C. (2010)

Charges of criminal harassment, harassing phone calls, assault and forcible confinement (domestic), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and received numerous email and text communications between the complainant and the client. In addition a defence investigation into the complainant’s face book site yielded information that combined with the information from the email and text messages undermined the complainant’s evidence. In addition, careful legal analysis of the facts underlying the charges, supported Joseph Neuberger’s position that many of the complained actions were possibly uncomfortable for the complainant, but understandable given the relationship and most importantly were not criminal. The client, being a military police officer, had also explained much of the alleged behaviour consistent with the defence position. After extensive written argument to the crown, the crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. Faqiryar (2010)

Client acquitted of assault after cross-examination of the Complainant by defence counsel Stacey Nichols revealed major inconsistencies in the identification evidence. The Trial Judge found that there was no evidence that the Accused was the actual culprit and dismissed the charge.

Regina v. J.P. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial meetings with the Crown and police. The client was alleged to have been involved in a human trafficking ring and to have sexually assaulted a female complainant, who had come over from Mexico, during the course of a four day trip through northern Ontario. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger transcribed all witness statements and created a detailed chart of all inconsistencies, as well as having drafted detailed disclosure requests seeking various critical pieces of information that were alleged to have been provided by the complainant. In particular, the complainant had made a refugee claim with one of the reasons to remain in Canada as being the victimization arising from the alleged sexual assault. A will-say was prepared by the lawyer acting on the immigration case for the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger relentlessly pursued the disclosure of this will-say and argued that the basis of the case was a fabricated allegation to allow the complainant to remain in Canada. A detailed written argument with source documents supporting the defence position was prepared by Joseph Neuberger and submitted to the Crown for their assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown accepted the argument and position put forth by Joseph Neuberger and as a result the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.T. (2010)

charges of domestic assault and mischief to property were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was alleged to have assaulted his wife after an argument regarding his suspicions of infidelity and then destroyed some of her personal belongings. While returning to Toronto from a business trip, the client was arrested and held for a bail hearing. After his release from custody, various bail variations were sought by the defence to allow the client greater freedom to reconstruct his life. The statement of the complainant, once analyzed by the defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, yielded a wide range of evidentiary areas for cross-examination. During extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown prosecutor, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish sufficient doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant’s version of events, that the charges were withdrawn in favour of a section 810 peace bond.

Regina v. V.W. (2010)

loitation x 3, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was charged with numerous allegations involving BDSM activities with his former spouse. The complainant alleged that she had never consented to such activities and was essentially held captive by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded, in-person, conversations between the client and his wife, that were then transcribed and detailed in chart format contradicting the facts alleged by the complainant. In addition, after extensive technical investigation, the defence was also able to recover several text and emails between the client and the complainant prior to their marriage confirming her interest in marrying someone who was interested in BDSM play, and evidencing, not only her desire, but willingness to purchase equipment to enjoy such play. Additional defence investigation revealed a financial motive for the complainant to allege criminal allegations of sexual assault in order to obtain a financial payoff. In light of all of the evidence gathered by Joseph Neuberger, and then presented over the course of several meetings and judicial pre-trials, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, and accordingly all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A. B. (2010)

Client was charged with Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, Sexual Exploitation, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. All charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was originally charged with two counts of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference, and released after a contentious bail hearing. The client was then arrested again after further statements were provided by the complainants, resulting in numerous additional sexual related charges. The client was released on bail after a lengthy second bail hearing. Over the course of several months, the defence carefully analyzed the numerous statements provided by the complainants, and compared the evidence against numerous emails and text messages sent by the complainants. There were extensive communications that once compared with the evidence of the complainants, undermined their evidence and supported the defence in the case. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed email communications and then requested a re-interview of the complainants by a different police officer. After further statements were taken, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainants had fabricated much of their evidence. This fatally impaired the prosecution and resulted in all charges being withdrawn.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2010)

Client was charged with sexual assault x 2, and sexual interference x 2. Charges were withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive defence discussions with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger transcribed all video statements provided by the prosecution and carefully analyzed, and broke down each statement in chart form to establish inconsistencies that ultimately undermined the evidence for the prosecution, thereby resulting in the withdrawal of the charges.

Regina vs. S.(S.) (2010)

Client acquitted of charges of Domestic Assault and Threatening Death after lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined Complainant revealing that actions of accused were in self-defence and also revealing faulty memory on behalf of the Complainant relating to recollection of actual threat.

Regina v. J.M. (2010)

Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, and Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established reliability issues with the Crown’s case. Further, the defence investigation, including the use of a private investigator hired by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, produced photographs of the alleged crime scene and surrounding area, which assisted in undermining the evidence of the complainant. Finally, the client’s evidence was accepted at trial. Accordingly, all charges against the client was dismissed.

Regina v. A.N. (2010)

Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 3, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to review injuries sustained by the client. The results established that the client was assaulted in a manner not consistent with the evidence of the three police officers. Further, defence interviews of various potential defence witnesses, established that the client was either wrongly identified as a person who had assaulted the police or was attacked by police without physical provocation on the part of the client. Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take formal statements from the defence witnesses and based upon all of the defence evidence, the crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A. (2010)

Charges of Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive review of the evidence with the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a lawful purpose for the client’s involvement with police and that the police acted in a hasty manner resulting in an unnecessary confrontation that did not involve any criminal conduct on the part of the client.

Regina v. S.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault and Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that evidence of the complainant’s allegations was not admissible. In addition, evidence obtained from a recorded call from the complainant to the client’s relative undermined her credibility. As such, all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. R.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of assault, utter death threats and fail to comply (domestic), after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, successfully challenged the admissibility of the DVD recorded statement of the complainant and established a Charter violation of the client’s statement to police. The complainant failed to recall key aspects of the case and the Crown sought to introduce the complainant’s statement in order to prove its case. The defence was able to exclude the statement, on the basis of reliability, by proving the method of questioning by the police was deficient and not a proper translation of the complainant’s evidence. Given the lack of evidence with the exclusion of the statements, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. A.T. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault (Domestic) after a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the extensively complaint on the 911 call, and the notes of officers regarding her utterances at the time of investigation, establishing motive to for the complainant to have fabricated the allegation. There were no visible injuries, when one would expect injuries given the statement of the complainant. Accordingly, Mr Neuberger was able to undermine the Crown’s case and the client was acquitted.

Regina v. D.A. (2009)

Client charged with a domestic assault on his wife, held in custody for bail and released on a recognizance of bail. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Orangeville, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.A. return to his home with his wife and by the first court appearance, the Crown decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Thus the charges was withdrawn.

R.v. (D.)H. 2009

Neuberger & Partners defended this client on a charge of Fail to Comply with Recognizance for breaking his bail while on release for the Charge of Aggravated Assault. The Court in Milton rendered a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. T.P. (2009)

Charges of Public Mischief, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault x 5 (Domestic), and Mischief Over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client having went to the police to complain about her boyfriend’s assaultive conduct, was eventually charged by police after the police took a three hour statement from the boyfriend. The police and Crown alleged that the client intentionally made up the original allegation of assault. The client was charged with numerous assault offences, in addition to the public mischief and obstruct allegations. The boyfriend (complainant) had been in regular contact with the client by email and text messages. He continued to contact the complainant even after she was charged with the offences. He continued to call and harass her. Upon instruction by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the client began to record the calls. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all email and text messages prior to the allegations and after. In total there were over 300 email and text messages. Mr. Neuberger, along with his senior law clerk, reviewed each communication, and transcribed the telephone calls. Mr. Neuberger developed a binder of the communications, and developed a chart setting out all inconsistencies between the emails and text messages with the statement of the boyfriend/complainant. The emails and text messages, and the recorded calls, undermined the credibility of the boyfriend’s statement. The chart developed by Mr. Neuberger and his senior law clerk clearly established very critical and material inconsistencies. A further chart was developed by Mr. Neuberger with “consistencies” between the email and text messages and the statement of the client/accused. On November 26, 2009, the Crown indicated on record that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because of Joseph Neuberger providing a very thorough and detailed analysis of the evidence, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.W. (2009)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his former wife with allegedly making harassing phone calls and continuing to attend her place of employment. All of the calls were recorded by the complainant. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully transcribed and reviewed in detail each call. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all family court documents, including the Affidavits of the complainant. Mr. Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed analysis of the calls and the statement of the complainant with reference to the Family Court proceedings and Affidavits. As a result, the defence was able to establish that the client’s calls were in response to provocative and aggressive actions taken by the complainant, and as such the Crown agreed that there was no crime committed. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn. The Crown commended Mr. Neuberger for his usual thorough analysis of the case, resulting in the withdrawal.

Regina v. G.C. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2, and Mischief x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established material inconsistencies between various statements made by the complainant that undermined the complainant’s credibility. The defence also established to the crown that defence witnesses were able to contradict the complainant’s evidence. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.D. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threaten Death and Mischief withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger established that a particular Crown witness was not properly subpoenaed to court and without the witness, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The inconsistencies between the complainant and the main Crown witness undermined the evidence for the Crown. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Sexual Interference x 3 withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed consideration of the evidence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the evidence was weak with inherent contradictions. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Tahir (2009)

Client found not guilty of Threaten Death x 2, Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was alleged, after having found his girlfriend with another man, to have threatened and assaulted his girlfriend and then threatened the other male. The client was also alleged to have grabbed a knife and acted in a threatening manner with the knife. After thorough cross-examination of the Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger and credible evidence given by the client, all charges were dismissed by the trial judge.

Regina v. A.K. (2009)

Charges of Assault x 3 (domestic) were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown regarding the vagueness of the statement of the complainant. Based upon defence material provided by Joseph Neuberger the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. G.S. (2009)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge in the Ontario Court of Justice. The allegation involved sexual contact over a four hour period with an employee in a store. All sexual contact was alleged to have occurred in a back room with no surveillance cameras. The defence sought production of four hours of surveillance for the cameras in the store. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the DVD surveillance recordings producing a detailed frame by frame and second by second chart outlining all actions of the client and the complainant. Through detailed examination, the defence was able to establish that the actions of the complainant did not match her story and all timing and details as provided by the complainant were contradicted by the recorded surveillance. As such, the client was found not guilty of the charge.

Regina v. B.M. (2009)

Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Utter Death Threats, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the inconsistencies in the statements of the Crown witnesses were extremely difficult to overcome. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G. (2009)

Uttering threats charge in Halifax. Neuberger & Partners appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia Court with client on Uttering Threats Charge, which was withdrawn as trial was to commence.

Regina v. A.M. (2009)

Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation. The complainant and the client were known to each other only through the accused provision of transportation services for the complainant. The complainant alleged that Mr. A.M. had sexually assaulted her during transport one morning. Detailed defence investigation about the timing of the alleged sexual assault established that during the time frame that the complainant stated the sexual assault occurred, A.M. never drove the complainant in the mornings. Records obtained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger undermined the timing of the allegations. Other detailed defence preparation established material inconsistencies in the complainant’s identification of A.M. Accordingly, A.M. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. J.Y. (2009)

Client acquitted of Intimidation x 3, Criminal Harassment x 3, Utter Death Treats, and Assault (Domestic) after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant with the use of prior statements, including birthday cards, Valentine’s Day cards and other related writings, resulted in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of four hours yielding numerous inconsistencies and successfully developed the defence. As a result the client was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. V.I. (2009)

Charges of assault and assault bodily harm withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial as a result of the defence investigation producing contradictory evidence to the complainant’s versions of events, including obtaining an expert dental report establishing that the alleged injury could not have been caused by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained detailed statement from a witness that again undermined the evidence of the complainant. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.A. (2009)

Charges of criminal harassment and assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed defence investigation establishing that the complainant fabricated the allegations.

Regina v. H.D. (2009)

Charges of Domestic assault x 6, Assault and Fail to Comply with bail x 4 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial defence disclosure and discussions with the Crown Attorney. The prosecution evidence alleged that the client, during the course of committing an assault on his wife, also self-inflicted head and facials injuries (on himself) for which he sought to blame one of the complainant’s witnesses as the perpetrator. The investigating police officers viewed the injuries to H.D. (Client) and determined that they were self-inflicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commenced an investigation into the reasons for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. Joseph Neuberger retained three medical experts and obtained opinion evidence that the injuries sustained by his client were not self-inflicted. As well the injury sustained by the complainant was not consistent with her description of how she stated that she was assaulted. In addition the defence obtained defence witness statements undermining the stories of the Crown witnesses. All defence evidence was presented in a defence forensic binder put together by Joseph Neuberger. The defence evidence compelled a determination that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as against H.D. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. O.G. (2009)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted defence investigation yielding two defence witness statements that undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial pursuant to negotiation with Crown regarding the reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Hoyte (2009)

Client acquitted of Domestic Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to comprehensive cross-examination of Complainant and detailed presentation of defence evidence.

Regina v. Page-Cole (2008)

Charges of Aggravated Assault withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed presentation of evidence undermining the evidence of the main Crown witness.

Regina v. M.R. (2008)

Charges of assault police officer x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after directed challenge to the force used in apprehending the client.

Regina v. Pealow (2008)

Client found not guilty of a charge of utter death threat (domestic) in the Ontario Court of Justice after two day trial. The Crown conceded a verdict of not guilty after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger completed his cross-examination of the complainant.

Regina v. V.D. (2008)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a five day jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the Crown witnesses arising from extensive preparation proved effective in undermining the credibility of the complainant and the supporting Crown witness. A strong jury closing resulted in a jury verdict of not guilty within 1 hour 20 minutes of the jury deliberating.

Regina v. Rohani (2008)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively pursued defence investigation on fabrication by the complainant. Crown withdrew as they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. L.D. (2008)

Domestic charges withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to pressure by defence lawyer Ms. Stacey Nichols to assess the Crown’s reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Williams (2008)

Client found not guilty of possession of a loaded handgun and carry concealed weapon after a two week jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court. our Defence lawyer advanced a duress argument, such that the client held the weapon under threat of death. After careful and detailed cross-examination of crown witnesses, which supported the behaviour of the client at the time of investigation and arrest consistent with someone who might have been frightened by a threat of harm, and a strong jury closing, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. Graham (2008)

Charges of domestic assault and fail to comply withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued successfully a Charter violation of the client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. Vigorous pursuit of full disclosure and setting a trial date established that the defence was seeking the earliest possible trial date. The delay of 11.5 months, and consequently the charges were withdrawn

Regina v. D.J. (2008)

Client acquitted of Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement, Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to skillful cross-examination of witnesses and legal argument by Ms. Stacey Nichols which revealed that Crown case did not meet required standard for conviction.

Regina v. Thomas (2008)

Client acquitted of domestic assault at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice following cross-examination of the complaint demonstrating numerous instances of inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of the allegations and a complete lack of evidence of an assault.

Regina v. M.S. (2008)

Client found not guilty of domestic assault after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger focused on instances of past aggressive behaviour by the complainant including previously biting the client and implausible and exaggerated aspects of her evidence.

Regina v. Meek (2008)

Charges of domestic assault x 3 and fail to appear withdrawn prior to trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established lack of credibility of the complainant’s allegations.

Regina v. S.M. (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. De Karic (2008)

Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and assault bodily harm in the Ontario Court of Justice after vigorous defence by Joseph Neuberger including careful attention to the set date phase of the proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charge.

Regina v. Szymanski (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault discharged at the Preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive and detailed cross-examination of the Crown witnesses including undermining the credibility of the complainant, and establishing that the complainant had motive to fabricate.

Regina v. C.S. (2007)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger established that accused was assaulted first and sustained injury caused by the complainant.

Regina v. Kovachev (2007)

The client was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. Four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Campling. Client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Johnston (2007)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and careless storage of ammunition withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence investigation into complainant’s attempts to extort a financial settlement in the Family law proceedings. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained the services of a private investigator and obtained statements and a recording of voice message left that seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the domestic assault and threatening allegations were withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. A.S. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant undermined the reliability of the evidence of the complainant. The trial judge accepted defence counsel Joseph Neuberger’s submissions on the lack of plausibility of the various allegations. Accordingly, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Hassen (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury after counsel’s thorough cross-examination of complainant revealed contradictions and inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence.

Regina v. P.M. (2007)

After trial, client found not guilty of domestic assault charges arising from York Regional Police investigation in Newmarket.

Regina v. W.W. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault x 2, sexual interference x 2, arising from historical sexual assault allegations in the Superior Court of Justice after a three day trial. At the preliminary hearing, detailed and comprehensive cross-examination produced transcripts of evidence that provided fruitful support for the defence theory at trial. During the Superior Court trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger relentlessly cross-examined both complainants on all aspects of their evidence including inconsistencies generated by the transcripts from the preliminary hearing and video taped statements. Through cross-examination the defence theory was put to each witness. At the end of the cross-examination of both complainants, the Crown conceded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction and directed the court to dismiss all four charges.

Regina v. D.V. (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Gang Sexual Assault stayed at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Relentless defence requests by Joseph Neuberger for detailed disclosure, and comprehensive examination of the Crown evidence resulted in the Crown being delayed in providing the case to the defence. By the time of the preliminary hearing, with the significant delay, inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence and the use of forensic evidence supporting the client’s denial of the allegations resulted in the charges being stayed.

Regina v. R.M. (2007)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Cross- examination of the complainant developed the defence theory that all actions alleged were consensual. Further, cross-examination established numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant as compared to her DVD statement. Consequently, the Justice found the client not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.T. (2007)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn after successful mistrial application sought by Joseph Neuberger in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. Sibte (2007)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed cross examination by Joseph Neuberger undermined the reliability of the complainant’s allegations resulting in a finding of not guilty.

Regina v. I.D. (2007)

Charges of utter death threats x 2, and assault (Domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence analysis of the statements of witnesses and the complainants establishing that the allegations could not have occurred. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M(L) (2006)

Charges of Robbery withdrawn by Crown Attorney after counsel successfully argues that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction due to identity issues.

Regina v. Young (2006)

Client acquitted of criminal harassment after thorough cross-examination of Complainant. Judge agrees pursuant to counsel’s submissions that offence of criminal harassment not made out.

Regina v. Ahmad (2006)

Five charges of sexual assault dismissed after defence cross-examination of the Complainant pinpointing numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.

Regina v. Tuitt (2006)

Charges of Threatening and Fail to Comply with Recognizance withdrawn by Crown Attorney after Defence points out difficulties with the anticipated evidence and problems with the charging documents.

Regina v. D.S. (2006)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault and assault after 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all Crown witnesses, including the complainant and her witnesses. Extensive preparation of the client also assisted in the client being believed by the Judge and based upon the credibility issues of the complainant and her witnesses, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Simpson (2006)

Charges of Assault x 4 (Domestic), Threaten Death and Fail to Comply all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence investigation disclosing numerous inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence and fabrication of other allegations.

Regina v. Zamkovoj (2006)

Two counts of assault, one count of threatening death and one count of breached probation withdrawn after Complainant does not attend court and Crown asks for adjournment to secure her attendance. Counsel presented recanting statement taken from Complainant by private investigator, forming basis for Judge not granting adjournment and reason why charges ultimately withdrawn.

Past results do not guarantee success in any particular case.

Dedicated to Defending our Clients

CONTACT INFORMATION


PHONE: (416) 364-3111
FAX: (416) 364-3271