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
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Charges of Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, withdrawn on the first day of trial.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
