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 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.
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.
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.
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.
