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
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto.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was negotiated where W.W. undertook a conflict management program and after completion the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault; Charges withdrawn by the Crown.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was arrived at whereby the accused would agree to forfeit his firearms in exchange for the sexual assault charges being withdrawn.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.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault x 2, Assault Choking, Forcible Confinement, Threat Death, and Mischief to Data, withdrawn prior to setting dates for trial, Toronto.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.
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.
A.F was charged with one count of Assault out of the Toronto courthouse. A.F. had a stepdaughter staying with her and her husband. A.F. and the stepdaughter had an argument. The husband of A.F. intervened and it was alleged that A.F. scratched him. A.F. called an ambulance as she was not feeling well because of the fight. The paramedics arrived, spoke to A.F. and called the police. Police officers arrived and took statements from all the parties. As a result, they arrested A.F. for assault. A.F. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya received disclosure and drafted A.F.’s history with her husband and the stepdaughter. Mariya had a pre-trial with the assigned Crown Attorney and negotiated a resolution. The Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charge upon waiting for 6 months. The Crown Attorney allowed full contact of A.F. with her husband while A.F. waited for 6 months for her charge to be withdrawn. Once 6 months have passed, the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
J.Q. was charged with one count of Assault and one count of Forcible Confinement out of the Kitchener courthouse. J.Q. was a visa student who was studying at the University of Waterloo. He had a girlfriend who was also a student at the University of Waterloo. On the night of the arrest, J.Q. and his girlfriend had an argument over J.Q. not paying enough attention to his girlfriend. The two started fighting. The girlfriend wanted to run outside of the house but J.Q. held her. Furthermore, he allegedly hit her. The girlfriend eventually ran outside and started to scream there. Neighbours called the police. Police officers arrived, spoke to the girlfriend of J.Q and charged J.Q with Assault and Forcible Confinement. J.Q. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners LLP. J.Q. provided Mariya with his photos of injuries as well as his excellent grades from the University of Waterloo. Mariya reviewed disclosure and put together a detailed package with various documents for the assigned Crown’s consideration. Mariya was able to convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges.
A.S. was charged with one count of Assault, Toronto. A.S. had a stepdaughter staying with her and her husband. A.S. and the stepdaughter had an argument. The husband of A.S. intervened and it was alleged that A.S. scratched him. A.S. called an ambulance as she was not feeling well because of the fight. The paramedics arrived, spoke to A.S. and based upon her statement, the police were called. Police officers arrived and took statements from all the parties. As a result, they arrested A.S. for domestic assault. A.S. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya received disclosure and drafted A.S.’s history with her husband and the stepdaughter. Mariya had a pre-trial with the assigned Crown Attorney and negotiated a resolution. The Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charge upon waiting for 6 months. The Crown Attorney allowed full contact of A.S. with her husband while A.S. waited for 6 months for her charge to be withdrawn. Once 6 months had passed, the charge of Assault was withdrawn. The level of the alleged assault was so minor; it would have been best to not charge anyone. But because of mandatory charge policies in “intimate partner or domestic violence” cases, the police had no discretion.
Charges of Assault and Forcible Confinement withdrawn prior to setting trial dates, Kitchener. J.Q. was charged with one count of Assault and one count of Forcible Confinement. J.Q. was a visa student who was studying at the University of Waterloo. He had a girlfriend who was also a student at the University of Waterloo. On the night of the arrest, J.Q. and his girlfriend had an argument over J.Q. not paying enough attention to his girlfriend. The two started arguing. The girlfriend wanted to run outside of the house but J.Q. held her. Furthermore, he allegedly hit her. The girlfriend eventually ran out and started to scream. Neighbours called the police. Police officers arrived, spoke to the girlfriend of J.Q and charged J.Q with Assault and Forcible Confinement. J.Q. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners LLP. J.Q. provided Mariya with his photos of injuries as well as his excellent grades from the University of Waterloo. Mariya reviewed disclosure and put together a detailed package with various documents for the assigned Crown’s consideration. Mariya was able to convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges. Charges against J.Q. were withdrawn when he entered into a peace bond.
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.
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.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
