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 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.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client had been dating a fellow worker and after about 7 or 8 dates, had gone back to the complainant’s home after dinner. The complainant alleged that after helping her with something related to her car, Z.W. grabbed her, carried, and forced her upstairs into a bedroom. While in the bedroom Z.W. was alleged to have taken the complainant’s clothes off and sexually assaulted her. The complainant contacted police two days later and Z.W. was charged. Z.W. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. After receiving the disclosure, what became interesting was photos taken of the complainant’s bedroom where the sexual encounter occurred and the washroom. The client had disclosed that after consensual sex, the complainant asked for money so she could buy some cloths that she wanted. This became highly relevant when the pictures of the room where Z.W. randomly took the complainant to contained in plain view two large boxes of condoms, lubricant, face masks, wipes and a waste basked with discarded condoms. Joseph Neuberger worked with Z.W. on his defence narrative and did a social media investigation which also assisted with the defence position. A 276/278 application was brought regarding areas of questioning and the admission of documents including numerous pictures Z.W. had taken of all their dates. The motion was successful. During trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her alleged version of the relationship. The complainant tried to minimize the dating and said was purely for business purposes and not romantic. Under cross-examination on numerous photographs including trips to the lake, trails and lavish dinners, the complainant finally admitted that romantic feelings had developed and there was no business discussed during the dates. There were other significant inconsistencies, but when faced with the questioning that the alleged rape consisted of Z.W. picking her up and bringing her to the second floor and randomly selecting a bedroom that by happenstance contained two boxes of condoms, lubricant and other related items, the complaint became visibly reluctant to answer questions and was evasive. The complainant eventually admitted that in fact Z.W., after sex, questioned her as to why there were some many condoms in her room and an argued ensued. Z.W. had accused her of being a sex worker and only having sex with him for material benefit. After the court considered all the evidence, the complainant was not a reliable witness and the evidence of Z.W. raised a reasonable doubt. As such, he was found not guilty of sex assault.
I.G. was charged with two counts of Assault and one count of Utter Threat out of Toronto (former 2201 Finch Avenue West) courthouse. I.G. went to a Christmas party at her girlfriend’s house. There she got involved in a heated argument with her girlfriend’s boyfriend. I.G. allegedly pushed the boyfriend a couple of times when he tried to ask I.G. to leave the residence. Police were called and I.G. was charged with an assault. The following day, I.G. sent text messages to the girlfriend as she was upset with a charge. Following a text message exchange, the girlfriend provided a statement to police and I.G. was charged with additional count of assault and one count of utter threat. The allegation was that I.G. pushed her girlfriend’s child out of the way when she was looking for her phone at the Christmas party as well as a threat in the text message. I.G. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya requested and reviewed disclosure. A surveillance video was provided from the party. After review of the video, Mariya received instructions from the client to pursue a resolution. Mariya put together a package that included significant background information of I.G. including many struggles she endured in her life. Mariya conducted seven pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. The Crown Attorney eventually agreed that given the extensive background information provided, it was not in the public interest to pursue the prosecution and the charges were withdrawn as I.G. signed a peace bond.
K.W. was charged with two counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Forcible Confinement and one count of Assault. The complainant was K.W.’s ex-girlfriend who became very unhappy with K.W.’s behavior after their breakup. She went to police and provided a statement with numerous domestic allegations including being sexually assault by K.W. on two occasions. K.W. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya received and analyzed disclosure provided by the Office of the Crown Attorney. There were numerous prior police occurrences. The relationship between K.W. and the complainant was troublesome with police officers being called many times but no charges being laid until the breakup. A 5-day trial was set at Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. Mariya had requested the client to provide all communications with the complainant to attempt to refute what were obviously false allegations. K.W. provided a set of text messages that the complainant sent to K.W. Mariya organized the messages and prepared a memo outlining reasonable prospect of conviction based upon the communications. Mariya set up a further pre-trial with the Crown and provided the memo and messages as defence disclosure. After the Crown reviewed the memo and messages, the Crown had a follow up discussion with the complainant. As a result, all charges against K.W. were withdrawn and the trial dates vacated. This is another important example of how messages between the complainant and person charged can provide a rich basis to contradict the narrative of the complainant.
Charge of Assault Bodily Harm (Domestic) withdrawn on trial date, London. D.C. was accused of a serious domestic assault charge involving his girlfriend of three months. While the relationship began well, it quickly deteriorated due to her serious alcohol addiction which resulted in false allegations being made against D.C. Despite her inability to provide a statement due to her extreme intoxication on the evening of the alleged assault, the police still chose to proceed with charges against D.C. who himself had been the victim of an attack by the girlfriend that night. D.C. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The case was a clear overreach by police and there was little chance of success. Yet the Crown continued the prosecution. The matter was set down for trial. The matter did not get reached on the first day of trial due to the Court being overbooked. The Crown refused to withdraw the charge at this stage and insisted that a new trial date be set despite a very weak case. At the next trial date, the girlfriend was not present when court commenced and claimed via email to be on her way. The Crown requested that the Court await her arrival without having any specific information as to when that might be. Michael Bury made submissions on this issue highlighting the difficulties with the Crown’s case and the apparent lack of interest by the complainant in getting to court on time and to at least provide an estimated time of arrival. Furthermore, it was argued that this was now the second trial date and that no further accommodation should be made to the Crown. The Judge agreed with defence submissions and asked whether the Crown was prepared to proceed now after having waited for the complainant for over an hour. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, instead of seeking a further adjournment given the Court’s position after Michael Bury’s submissions.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Brampton. D.M. was charged with assaulting his elderly mother while trying get her to exit a plane after their flight landed. The mother suffered from dementia and deteriorating health which often caused her to not be aware of her surroundings. D.M. found himself in a frustrating situation as he and his mother were the last ones to leave the flight and she was not cooperating with him. The Crown alleged that D.M. slapped his mother in an attempt to get her attention so that she would cooperate. D.M. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him as the Crown was treating the case as elder abuse. D.M. explained that his mother had serious challenges which made dealing with her very difficult at times. He was also very concerned about the implications a criminal record might have for his professional designation. Michael Bury conducted several pretrials with the Crown and ultimately convinced the Crown that a criminal record was in no one’s best interests, especially since the mother wanted to resume contact with D.M. as soon as possible as he was her primary caregiver. The Crown agreed with a counselling proposal suggested by Michael Bury which would address any lingering safety concerns that the Crown had. After the successful completion of counselling sessions customized to address the issues in this case, the charge against D.M. was withdrawn, he entered into a peace bond, and was reunited with his mother.
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.
