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 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.
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.
Client found not guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault after a five-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa. The Complainant was an employee of R.R. who worked as a Bartender at his restaurant from December 2015 to April 2018. She alleged that over a course of two years, R.R. abused his position of authority and forced her to have sexual relations with him. In her police statement, the Complainant alleged that the first incident took place within three months of her employment when she walked into R. R’s office to cash out for the night. As she entered his office, R.R. allegedly locked the door and kissed her without her consent. The Complainant then alleged that within a month from this incident, R.R. forcefully took her to the parking lot and made her perform oral sex on him. Shortly thereafter, she also alleged that R.R. would force her to have sexual intercourse with him every Sunday and Monday nights after she finished her shift. The Complainant resigned in 2018 and reported him to the police in 2021 to have him charged with sexual assault. R.R. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. The defence gathered from the client a vast amount of messages, her job application, and photographs which undermined the Complainant’s evidence. In her statement, the Complainant stated that she dreaded working on Mondays, had no relationship with R.R., never flirted with him, and stopped all communication with him after her resignation. The defence brought 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. The Application was argued over the course of two days and was successful. The Application was drafted laying out in great detail the evidence that undermined the complainant’s version of events as well as the defence evidence. The Application was successful, and all material were ruled admissible. The matter went to trial and Yuvika Johri cross-examined the complainant for two days. In cross-examination the complainant denied a number of obvious facts that were set out in the messages and asserted that she never had a relationship with R.R. Through extensive cross examination, Yuvika Johri was able to establish significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant to the police with her in-court testimony. After a five-day trial, R.R. was found not guilty of all sexual assault charges.
Charges of three counts of assault, forcible confinement, and mischief under $5,000 withdrawn, Toronto. The complainant alleged a domestic assault, wherein W.W. was alleged to have confined the complainant in his home after assaulting her and broken her cell phone. Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges. After a detailed review of the complainant’s statement along with the absence of any injuries that would normally be expected with the assaults described, Liam Thompson was able to successfully demonstrate that there was significant reason to doubt the complainant’s version of events. The Crown concluded that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction, and the charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
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.
