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
Charges of Assault (x2), Assault (Choking), Theft Under, Fail to Comply (x2) withdrawn before trial, Milton.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 Following that meeting, the charges were finally withdrawn.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.
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.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Milton. M.P. had a close relationship with a friend at school. The two communicated each night over snapchat and talked at school. M.P. developed romantic feelings for the complainant and one day the two planned a “hang-out” at M.P.’s home. During the afternoon, the two became intimate but the end of the encounter did not go well as something cruel was said by the complainant to M.P. M.P. told her that she knew where the door was, and he stopped communicating with her. Over the course of the summer of 2021, he started to hear rumours amongst friends that he had raped the complainant. When back at school the rumours grew and M.P. asked to speak with the complainant. The two met and the complainant recorded their conversation. M.P. apologized but asked to not spread such rumours. After the talk, the complainant went to police and M.P. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend M.P. After extensive defence investigation, it became clear there was a negative response to M.P. cutting off contact with the complainant who then went on a campaign to ruin M.P.’s reputation with friends. She spread rumours and the rumours and allegations grew as time went on. At trial, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant was incredibly evasive and vague on particulars to avoid obvious untruthful evidence. There were serious inconsistencies but facts that she finally admitted under extensive cross-examination that in fact she had been participating in all sexual contact. Further, the complainant decided to only turn over to police an edited recording of their meeting and it was clear that M.P. was apologizing to avoid further conflict with the complainant. M.P. who testified at trial was believed by the Court on crucial facts such that he was found to not have committed certain alleged sexual acts. The judge at the end of the day was unable to determine what sexual acts had occurred and found the evidence of the complainant unreliable. As a result, M.P. was found not guilty of sexual assault.
Client found factually innocent of sexual assault and assault after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was found not only not guilty, but the Court believed the testimony of A.K. that he did NOT sexually assault the complainant or assault her and specifically disbelieved the complainant. This is an important case to note that with proper analysis and preparation the truth can prevail. A.K. was a licenced technician who repairs dental equipment. He was called on an emergency to attend a dental office to repair a dental chair so that the office could operate and would not have to cancel patients. A.K. attended and the office receptionist showed him the chair and after inspection it turned out the receptionist had tampered with a critical part of the chair. A.K. told the complainant that he would have to advise the dentist office owner that a new part will need to be ordered and there may be other damage. There was an argument about the complainant feeling A.K. would wind up getting her fired. He left. The complainant about an hour later made a complaint to the office manager alleging sex assault and then went to police. A.K. was charged. He retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger went in depth with the client about what happened and prepared the client to testify and drafted a detailed cross-examination of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able through cross-examination to establish the complainant fabricated the allegations and the client was found not guilty of sexual assault and assault. As noted above the client was found by the Court to be factually innocent.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial and after 278 motion on records, Ontario Court, Pembroke. A.D. had shared custody of his daughter. After and exchange of the daughter, there was complaint from the 6-year-old daughter about being touched by her father in her private area during bathing time. An investigation commenced and A.D. was charged with sex assault and sexual interference. Joseph Neuberger, of Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend A.D. Joseph obtained medical records related to the child having UTIs because of improper cleaning with medical notes instructing the parents to assist with cleaning to ensure the area in question was cleaned especially after the child when to the washroom. A.D. provided details as to what he followed to instruction and assist his daughter. He was in a complete shock about the allegation. Further, a careful analysis was done of the statement of the young child with a memo breaking down the issues with the statement. Suffice to say, there were major issues with the content that the child, even with the current case law regarding how to assess a child witness, the evidence could not be relied upon. The memo and all medical records were disclosed to the Crown. Unfortunately, the Crown decided to prosecute, and the matter was set for trial and a 278 motion to admit the medical records. After the motion record was filed with a detailed explanation of how the records were relevant, with laying out the defence and the issues with the statement, the Crown withdrew the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference. * This case shows how easy as a parent it is to get charged with an innocent touch for the health of the child when taken to an extreme by authorities.
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.
