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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Oshawa.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and a very positive therapy report, the Crown agreed to have S.B. enter into a peace bond and his charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
