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 seven-day jury trial, Toronto. M.A. was jointly charged with a friend after an evening at a pub with friends where he met a lady. The group returned to M.A.’s friend apartment where the two ladies came along. Everyone continued to enjoy the evening, and the complainant attended a bedroom with the co-accused. M.A. and another female went downstairs from the apartment and were having a smoke. A short while later a call was received with the complainant requesting her friend to come back to the apartment because she was “uncomfortable and wanted to go home”. Both M.A. and the lady with him attended the apartment and noticed the complainant and the co-accused were in a bedroom having sex. After the complainant and her friend left, the complainant went to police three days later and alleged a sexual assault with the co-accused and advised that M.A. had joined in when he came into the apartment and had manually touched her. M.A. was charged with Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The statements of the complainants had material inconsistencies, but the second lady confirmed a fair amount of the evidence of the complainant. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, during which Joseph Neuberger carefully cross-examined the complainant and the witness raising issues of intoxication impacting their capacity to perceive and recall the alleged events, creating a material inconsistency in the version of the complainant such that she testified in cross-examination to three versions of how the sex assault of M.A. allegedly occurred, and evidence of the witness that in fact her statement to police was not accurate and she did not see what she said she witnessed eventually agreeing in cross-examination that all she saw was M.A. touch the outer knee area of the complainant and nothing more. M.A. was well prepared for trial and gave evidence at trial. Joseph Neuberger delivered a strong closing address to the jury and M.A. was found not guilty.
Charge of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. W.A. was in a relationship with a woman who had a teenage daughter. The allegation was that W.A, his partner and her daughter were sitting in the living room and eating takeout. The daughter alleged that W.A. placed his hand on her thigh. The daughter threw the food in the air and ran out of the living room. A few days later the daughter called the police and provided a statement. W.A. was charged. W.A. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko received disclosure and did a detailed defence investigation. She found out that the complainant had previously reported a sexual assault complaint against W.A. and W.A. was charged with sexual interference a few years ago. The previous charges were withdrawn as the daughter did not want to proceed with the charges. However, in her recent statement, the daughter stated that she was told by her mother to tell the Crown Attorney that she didn’t want to proceed with the charges. As such, the Crown Attorney had full intention to proceed with the current charges. Mariya spoke to the mother of the daughter and got a full background on the daughter as well as the mother’s side of the story. It was clear that the daughter was going through some difficulties in life and was experiencing a mental health crisis. The mother had her daughter attend counseling. The mother advised that the mental health of the daughter was improved and that the daughter’s view on the events that led to the allegations changed. The mother was able to have the daughter consent to providing details on the therapy, assessment, and alternating facts of the allegations. The daughter retained her own lawyer who got in touch with Mariya. The lawyer stated that the daughter indicated that the hand on her knee by W.A. was not sexual in nature. The daughter noted that she disliked W.A. as she saw him as someone who was trying to take her late father’s place. This was motive to fabricate. The lawyer for the daughter and Mariya worked collaboratively to address the fabrication. The lawyer for the daughter wrote a letter to the Crown Attorney, met with the Crown Attorney, and had a follow up discussion with Mariya. Mariya then conducted a Judicial Pre-Trial laying out the motive to fabricate, the obvious issues with the credibility of the complainant and importantly the fact that any such touching was NOT SEXUAL in nature but simply a moment of affection toward a stepdaughter with no other surrounding evidence to suggest a sexual act. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2 and Utter Death Threats withdrawn prior to setting trial dates, Toronto. L.S. and his wife had been married for about eight years but for the six months up to the date of L.S. being charged, the couple had numerous arguments about the family finances. About two days before L.S. was charged, the arguments got intense, and the complainant slapped L.S. and then L.S. got physical. The police were called and L.S. was charged with the domestic abuse allegations. L.S. retained Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang made arrangements for L.S. to see a Mandarin speaking therapist as clearly there was an unhealthy dynamic in the manner in which L.S. and the complainant communicated. Joseph Neuberger assisted with speaking with the family lawyers and eventually through mediated discussions, L.S. and the complainant wanted to reconcile. A bail variation was granted so that L.S. could be in contact with his wife and after therapy and several pre-trials, the charges were formally withdrawn.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket Court. The Y.W.’s wife is works in the home and had a particularly busy day. When she found the living room was a big mess with son’s toys, she was so mad that she threw the toy blocks on the ground. The toy blocks bounced back and hit the forehead of the son, causing bruises and swells. Y.W. tried to calm the wife down by holding her waist. She was in the fit of anger and called the police for assault by Y.W. The police attended and charged Y.W. with assault. Y.W. retained Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. Daisy obtained the disclosure and the pictures at the scene and the injury of son taken by Y.W. Based on the detailed background information, Daisy conducted a meeting with the Crown to explain what happened. The Crown agreed to the completion of the PARs program by Y.W. and withdrew the charge of Domestic Assault.
Client found not guilty of two counts of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. This was a historic judgement in which our client was found by the court to be a male victim of domestic (emotional and psychological) violence relevant to his vigilance in seeking consent for sex and his apologetic nature with the complainant. F.Z. and the complainant were married for some two years, and the relationship deteriorated. F.Z. wanted to end the marriage and after asking for a divorce the complainant left the home and launched family court proceedings. F.Z. had transferred back to his parents half a million dollars that was provided for the couple to buy a home. The complainant sent an email to F.Z. stating that she separated from F.Z. the day before F.Z. sent funds back to his parents. About a month later, the complainant attended the police station and gave a statement alleging to historical sexual assault allegations. The complainant provided two threads of messages that she purported to demonstrate that F.Z. had apologized for the sexual assaults. The complainant in her family court proceedings alleged sexual and other abuse and sough maximum financial support and damages. F.Z. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him on the charges. After careful review of the disclosure, Joseph obtained from the client hundreds of messages over the course of the marriage that when viewed in a cumulative fashion demonstrated that F.Z. was very much under the control of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger drafted and filed a 276/278 application to introduce at trial other sexual history evidence and all the messages and documents, including filings in the family court proceedings, to undermine the credibility of the complainant. The application was successful. At trial extensive cross-examination of the complainant revealed that the complainant was disingenuous and highly manipulative. The messages and family court material undermined her credibility. Further, Joseph Neuberger, sent F.Z. for assessment and therapy to determine if he was suffering from a disorder because of emotional and psychological abuse. It was apparent to us that F.Z. was indeed abused. At trial in the defence case, the client was called and denied the allegations but also gave details of the abuse he suffered and why it factored into how careful and cautious he was in seeking any consent for sex. Cross-examination of the complainant critically demonstrated that F.Z. had in fact been respectful and cautious about consent up to the day the first alleged sexual assault allegedly occurred. The defence expert psychiatric evidence showed that F.Z. exhibited symptoms of complex trauma consistent with abuse by his wife, and that his behavior consistent with the abuse resulted in him being compliant, apologetic, and extremely careful about how he interacted in all aspects of his life with his wife. At the conclusion of the trial, we drafted written closing submissions quoting extensively from the trial evidence with case law to support the defence that F.Z. was in fact innocent and falsely accused. The Court concluded that the complaint was not credible and that indeed F.Z.’s conduct was consistent with suffering from complex trauma because of being an abused spouse. As such, F.Z. was found not guilty of both charges of sexual assault.
Charge of Assault with Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket Court. X.L. and the complainant had a relationship for a short period of time. When X.L. broke up with the complainant, the complainant posted some pictures of X.L. and her son in Wechat, and in an emotional moment and made bad comments about their relationship history. X.L. went to his place asking him to delete the posts, but he refused. X.L. took his phone from the table and deleted the post. The complainant called the police alleging X.L. hit him in his chest with the phone. X.L. was charged with assault with weapon. X.L. retained Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. After obtaining and reviewing the statements of the complaint and the police officers’ notes, Daisy found one of officer noted X.L had a bad shoulders and could not be handcuffed. Daisy contacted X.L. and confirmed that X.L had a serious frozen shoulder so that it is even difficult for her to lift the arm for dressing. Then Daisy obtained the medical report from X.L.’s family doctor and provided it to the Crown. Through extensive discussion with the Crown, The Crown agreed there is a reasonable doubt that she hit the complaint by phone with bad shoulder. The charge was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of Assault, Assault Choking, human trafficking x 2, Material Benefit x 2, Procuring, and Advertise Sexual Services, after six-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. U.M. was asked by his marijuana supplier to assist with a young lady who came in from a northern part of Ontario. U.M. put her up at two hotels, under his name, address, and points reward number and then later in the week was alleged to have trafficked her for sex. U.M. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, to represent him on the charges. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison, an advocate for falsely accused men, worked on the file. The case was carefully analyzed, and considerable time was placed on drafting cross-examination of the complainant and a witness who was originally charged with the same offences but let off of the charges to give evidence against U.M. At trial, cross-examination was detailed, and persistent which resulted in raising very significant issues of credibility and reliability. The client was prepared to testify and did so at trial. The trial judge quoted extensively from cross-examination of both Crown witnesses and the defence written closing submissions. Key elements were the surveillance footage of the client who did nothing to conceal his identify when booking the young lady into two hotels, no financial documentation to support any funds from sex trafficking, poor recall due to drug use, no actual evidence of any appointments to meet clients, and complete freedom of the complainant to contact her family, and roam around Toronto. There was so much evidence contradicting the complainant that was outlined in the closing written submissions. Further, the other Crown witnesses had significant deficits in her evidence including her interest in the outcome of the trial to ensure her obligation to cooperate with police to give evidence against U.M. so that she was not charged with the same offences. At the conclusion of the matter, the Court determined that U.M. was not guilty of all offences.
client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Utter Threats, after a five-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.M. was in a relationship with the complainant for three years. It was not the best relationship as the two often accused each other of infidelity. In December 2018, the complainant had been monitoring A.M.’s Facebook account and caught that he had been with another woman. The two had an argument and the complainant moved out of the home. For several months, the two communicated via email, WhatsApp and met. There continued to be arguments but there was a decision to reconcile until A.M. had accused the complainant of only wanting his money and had asked for her to repay him a significant amount of money. Further, the complainant was angry that A.M. and his cousin were allegedly sharing pictures that she wanted to be kept private (in actuality, there was nothing to this allegation). The complainant went to police in August of 2019. A.M. went to the police and A.M. was charged with the criminal offences. A.M. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. After Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the disclosure, he had A.M.’s cell phone sent to a tech expert to extract deleted messaging between A.M. and the complainant. Over 1000 messages was extracted including videos, pictures and a host of images post-dating the end of the relationship, and prior to the end of the relationship. A vast amount of the material was highly relevant to refuting the complainant’s narrative and specific facts of each of the charges. The charges ranged in dates covering 2018 up to December 26th, 2018. The complainant had asserted in her statement to police that after she left the home of A.M., she wanted nothing to do with A.M. and never saw him again in person and rarely communicated with him. The vast number of messages, images and videos, undermined her evidence. Joseph Neuberger obtained the meta data to confirm the dates of all messages and images. The defence brough a section 276/278 Application prior to trial to admit “other sexual activity” evidence and messages as relevant evidence to rebut the narrative of the complainant and her characterization of the relationship both before December 26th and after. The Application was successful, and all material was ruled admissible. The matter went to trial and Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for two and half days prior to asking for an adjournment to then bring a mid-trial application to admit other “other sexual history” evidence and further messages. In cross-examination the complainant, when answering, denied a number of obvious facts that were set out in the messages and asserted that she never attended A.M.’s home after December 26th among other facts that were inaccurate. The mid-trial Application was carefully drafted, argued and succeeded in full. After the ruling on the mid-trial Application, the complainant refused to attend for further cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, and the Crown conceded a directed verdict of not guilty on all charges of sexual assault and assault.
Client found not guilty of a 9 count Information of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault choking x 2 and Assault x 3 after a five-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. V.S. was in a deteriorating marriage. There were two children, a daughter, and a son. V.S. was travelling a fair amount each month and hence was away from the home missing time with the children. In the fall of 2020, the complainant, the ex-wife, had an argument with V.S. about his travels and said he should limit his time with the children as it is too hard on them when he travels. The couple had other arguments, but the marriage was failing and V.S. asked for a divorce and she had found a file the contained correspondence with a family lawyer. Over the next couple of months, the children started to be more distant, and his daughter was becoming more and more defiant with his directions at home. In January of 2021, an argument ensued between V.S. and his daughter about her use of her cell phone and being on social media during school hours. V.S. went to grab the phone and the argument escalated. V.S. went out for a pre-scheduled business meeting and when he returned, he was arrested and charged with sexual assault allegations as against his daughter, and the assault charges as against his daughter, his then 5-year-old son and his wife. The one count against his wife alleged several different sets of allegations of domestic abuse. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, were retained to defend him on the allegations. Joseph referred V.S. to a family lawyer and had him commence a divorce application and to seek some access to his children. Joseph worked closely with the family lawyer, and sure enough the Reply in the family law case from the complainant wife detailed all of the criminal allegations and added additional sexual allegations involving the daughter and son. The complainant wife was seeking unequal distribution of assets, sole possession of the house, sole custody of the children and $100,000 in damages for domestic abuse. The family court documents provided Joseph Neuberger with a rich source of information to cross-examine the former wife and to allege parental alienation. In fact, given the statements of the children, it was a very clear case of parental alienation. A 278 Application was brought to tender various documents, messages and pictures that illustrated over seven years a very close bonded relationship with both children. Joseph and Diana spent considerable time with the client helping him get ready for trial. He was emotional and worried about the trial. In addition, a detailed cross-examination was drafted. At trial, Joseph was able to establish through cross-examination material inconsistencies in the evidence of each witness, that the younger son was confused and heavily influenced by his sister and mother during the fall of 2020 and including just before going to the police being told about memories he forgot. Even before trial, it came out in cross-examination that while the wife, and the two children were driving to court, the complainant wife told the young son to remember details that were NOT in his statement to police. Under cross-examination, the complainant wife denied saying anything to the son or daughter. In cross-examination of the daughter, it came out not only that her sexual assault allegations were inconsistent and not plausible, but that during the fall of 2020 the complainant wife, her mother, had co-opted the daughter to help her get sole custody of her and her brother. There was a vast amount of evidence developed through cross-examination to demonstrate collusion and tainting of evidence. V.S. testified and denied the allegations. After the evidence, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed closing written submissions and the Court ultimately found V.S. not guilty of all charges.
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.
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.
