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 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.
Charges of Assault and Unlawfully in a Dwelling withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Toronto. Unfortunately, K.Y. had a very unhealthy relationship with his girlfriend. He suspected that she was seeing another person and one day he went to her home and noticed she was with someone else. He rang the doorbell, and it became obvious that she was with another person. K.Y. lost it, and pulled his girlfriend out of the house and assaulted his girlfriend. There were several witnesses. Police were called and he was charged. K.Y. retained Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him. K.Y. was immediately remorseful and ashamed of his conduct. He was sent for intensive therapy for anger management. Both Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello did an extensive background history on K.Y. and Ms. Condello had K.Y. pursue his passion of fashion design. In fact, he was accepted into a prestigious US College program. Ms. Condello had K.Y. complete community service, provide his school transcripts and letters of character. The therapy and assessment report came back very positive. Extensive pre-trials were conducted. The complainant was consulted by the Crown and the resolution. It was negotiated that K.Y. would enter into a peace bond and all charges were to be withdrawn.
Charges of two counts of Sexual Assault and two counts of Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto, 2201 Finch courthouse. After a high conflict divorce, N.A. won custody of both his children, and they used to live in a two-bedroom town home. Although the children lived with N.A., he allowed them to visit their mother and have cordial relations with her. The older son slept in his own room and N.A. shared his bedroom with the Complainant, his 14-year-old daughter. The Complainant alleged that on one occasion, while she was sleeping in the shared bed with N.A., she woke up to him moving his body closer to hers. She alleged that N.A. put his hands on her stomach and moved it upwards to fondle her breasts. The Complainant alleged that on multiple occasions thereafter, the accused would reach over to touch her breasts while appearing to be sleeping. During an outing with the children, the older son and N.A. got into an argument over an unrelated issue when the son confronted N.A. about touching the Complainant inappropriately. This interaction was video recorded by the Complainant. Due to this argument, the son along with the Complainant decided to move back with their mother. Once at the mother’s home, the Complainant disclosed the alleged incidences to her mother and the police were called. N.A. was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent N.A. against the charges. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and found inconsistencies in the Complainant’s statement. Yuvika had extensive discussions with the crown and showed that not only were there inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, but there was also evidence of the Complainant’s mother grooming the children against N.A. N.A was previously charged with domestic violence against the Complainant’s mother and there was reason to believe that she held animosity towards N.A. since before they separated. After conducting a few Judicial Pre-Trials, all charges were withdrawn against N.A. as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. It was important to have these charges withdrawn as N.A. was a chartered accountant and a conviction would lead to serious consequences from him.
Charges of four counts of Assault, one count of Sexual Assault, and one count of Utter Threats were withdrawn prior to setting trial dates at Oshawa. T.E’s common law spouse (Complainant 1) and her daughter (Complainant 2) alleged that T.E. would abuse alcohol and have arguments with both of them. Both Complainants alleged that in his state of intoxication, he would assault them and threatened them to vacate his house. The assaults would range from punches to squeezing the Complainant’s face. On one occasion, Complainant 2 alleged that T.E. sexually assaulted her by pulling her pants down and exposing her genitals. She alleged that she tried to push T.E. off of her, but he continued touching her around her vaginal area and chest area. On the day of T.E.’s arrest, Complainant 2 alleged that she was having an argument with T.E when he threatened to kill Complainant 1. Complainant 1 was not at home at the time of this argument, however, upon her arrival, she alleged that T.E. broke into her bedroom and engaged in an argument. She alleged that T.E. sprayed her with a water bottle and when Complainant 2 tried to intervene, he allegedly did the same to her as well. Police were called and T.E. was charged with four counts of Assault, one count of sexual assault, and one count of utter threats. The charge of sexual assault was disclosed by Complainant 2 after T.E.’s arrest. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent T.E. against the charges. Disclosure showed that all parties had numerous prior occurrences with the police and some of them was T.E. calling the police to report the Complainants. Disclosure also showed that Complainant 2 was a sex offender who had a prior conviction for sexually assaulting a minor. After having extensive discussions with the crown, Yuvika was able to show several weaknesses in the crown’s case and as a result, all charges were withdrawn against T.E.
Client was charged with two counts of Utter Threat, Scarborough Courthouse. S.M. had a newborn child with his wife. S.M.’s father-in-law lived in the same house with them. Due to sleep deprivation and tiredness both S.M. and his wife were on the edge and argued a lot. On the night of the allegations, S.M. consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and went to sleep. He was awakened by the father-in-law who asked S.M. to assist with a child. S.M. engaged in verbal argument. S.M.’s wife joined the argument. It was alleged that S.M. threatened to harm both his wife and the father-in-law. The wife called the police and S.M. was charged. S.M. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya reviewed the disclosure. S.M. wanted the charges to be resolved and for him to go back to his wife and his child as soon as possible. S.M. had a criminal record which complicated the resolution. Nevertheless, Mariya had S.M. attend counseling for anger management and alcohol addiction. Upon successful completion, Mariya had a discussion with the assigned Crown Attorney. The circumstances around the allegations – sleep deprivation, a newborn baby, etc. were brought up. The Crown Attorney agreed for S.M. to enter into a common law peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.
Charge of Asault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates at Milton. It was alleged that N.C. was driving with her ex-boyfriend when a verbal altercation ensued between them. The Complainant alleged that N.C. became angry with him and started slapping him in the face multiple times when he told her that she could not return to work. N.C. used to work at the same company as the Complainant and his superiors had advised him to inform N.C. of her termination. The Complainant alleged that in her anger, N.C. grabbed his ears while driving, jumped onto his lap in the driver’s seat, and began squeezing his face. To get rid of N.C., the Complainant pulled over and allegedly jumped out of the car and called the police. N.C. was charged with one count of simple assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent N.C against the charge. After reviewing the disclosure and speaking with the assigned crown, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw the charge against N.C. on condition that N.C. undergo upfront therapy. Charge of simple assault was withdrawn by way of an 810-peace bond.
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.
