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
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 The Crown Attorney allowed full contact of A.S. with her husband while A.S. waited for 6 months for her charge to be withdrawn. Once 6 months had passed, the charge of Assault was withdrawn.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
