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Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto.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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto.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.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a three-day trial, Newmarket. R.M. met the complainant on a Chinese dating site. They communicated for a month before arranging an afternoon walk on a nature trial in York Region. The complainant after getting into his car, started to complain about wanting to be taken to a restaurant or bar in downtown Toronto. The two argued a bit but eventually went on the nature walk. The messages between the two clearly demonstrated the date was to be a nature walk. It was the middle of October on a nice Saturday afternoon. The complainant attended in a short dress with a think top and white shoes. While on the walk, the two got into a verbal argument again about not going to a restaurant. The complainant alleged that she was grabbed from behind. Then she walked back to the parking lot and allegedly R.M. grabbed the complainant and pinned her up against the car, touching her breasts and grinding against her for five to ten minutes. The complainant approached a stranger in the parking lot and police were called. R.M. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend Mr. R.M. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of a day yielding that the complainant was essentially coerced into the trail hike, and that there was NO one around the entire park. The complainant begrudgingly admitted that she did ask to go to a restaurant and that she was not dressed for a hike in the woods. Further, she took careful note of R.M.’s high end car, his expensive clothing and that he had a good job. The complainant was caught on several significant inconsistencies, including that in fact there was considerable discussions in the car about what my client did for a living, where he was from, his income and that she wanted to go to a restaurant. R.M. testified that he did not sexually assault the complainant but that once they returned to his car, he told her that she was obviously looking for a wealthy Chinese man and he accused her of being a gold digger. She got upset and got out of the car and walked to another car where she called 911. Further, Joseph Neuberger called two civilian witnesses who were present at the time the complainant walked away. Both civilian witnesses testified that the parking lot was busy, about ¾ full of cars. Further, that the park was busy with lots of hikers around including people walking their dogs and on bikes. This corroborated R.M.’s testimony and directly contradicted the complainant that it was an isolated area. The complainant clearly sought to characterize R.M. as a sexual predator. After detailed written closing submissions, R.M. was found not guilty of sex assault.
M.I. was charged with Assault with a Weapon against his partner, Toronto. M.I. had an argument with his common law partner, the complainant. M.I. allegedly threw a glass cup into the complainant, missing her and hitting the wall. Alcohol was a factor. M.I. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya reviewed the disclosure. Aggravating factors were that M.I. had a conviction for an assault against his previous wife and a peace bond against his current partner. Mariya had a pre-trail with the assigned Crown Attorney. Mariya was able to convince the Crown Attorney that a trial was not in the best interests of M.I., the complainant and society. The client started the PARS anger management course but has failed it. Mariya had further discussions with the prosecutor and M.I. was allowed to complete private counseling. Upon completion, the client entered into a peace bond and the criminal charge of Assault with a Weapon was withdrawn.
Y.Y. was charged with Domestic Assault, Toronto. Y.Y. was having an argument with his wife. The allegations are that while doing the dishes, Y.Y. came behind the wife and struck her with his hands. The wife called 911 and gave a statement to the police. Y.Y. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya reviewed the disclosure and then conducted two pre-trials with the Crown. Mariya provided extensive background information about the couple and the state of their marriage. In fact, Y.Y. was quite depressed. Mariya negotiated that the client would take private counselling to address the issues in the marriage and anger issues. Upon completion of counseling, the client entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. V.F. was in a high conflict divorce. After filing for divorce, the complainant went to police and alleged a historic domestic assault of V.F. arguing with her and hitting her cell phone out of her hand. V.F. was charged and the complainant immediately amended her application in family court seeking sole custody due to domestic abuse. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to defend V.F. Once disclosure was received, the entire family court record was provided to the Crown. A few pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw. As such the charges of domestic assault were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault (x2), Assault (Choking), Theft Under, Fail to Comply (x2) withdrawn before trial, Milton. A.K. was accused of serious domestic assault charges involving his wife. The matter originally came to the attention of the police when they received a call to attend at the matrimonial home for a dispute involving the complainant and her sister-in-law, neither of whom spoke English very well and were recent immigrants to Canada. As a result of some serious language barriers and communication issues, A.K. ended up being charged by the police, instead of the sister-in-law. To make matters worse, both A.K. and his wife had been experiencing considerable stress in the marriage due to COVID lockdowns and the ongoing challenges of the Pandemic. Somehow, the true nature of the allegations was lost in translation and A.K. was charged. He subsequently retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. After a considerable review of the marital history and stressors caused by COVID, it became clear that the couple could benefit from counselling and therapy for their relationship. Michael Bury put in place a counselling plan and arranged for the involvement of therapists to address any future concerns the Crown might have regarding the marriage. Additionally, a lengthy report was prepared by another law firm which provided independent legal advice to the complainant and confirmed that she in fact did wish to resume her relationship with A.K. who was prohibited from seeing her due to his bail conditions. Initially, the Crown would not consider withdrawing the charges and trial dates were set. However, after all the upfront therapy work was completed and the independent legal advice report forwarded, the Crown agreed to reconsider the matter and meet with the complainant. Following that meeting, the charges were finally withdrawn. Not only was the couple immediately reunited, A.K. had one less concern as the matter had been reported to his professional college as a potential disciplinary matter which could have had serious impact on his license to practice.
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.
