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 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.
Charges of domestic assault, and assault by choking were withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. The complainant, the client’s daughter, alleged that the client had hit and choked her as a result of an argument over house work. Mr. Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the case. Liam met with the client for several hours going through the history of issues with the daughter including gathering source documents from school as to defiant behavior in and outside of the home. G.L. had not in fact touched the complainant but was attempting to enforce house rules that the complainant did not want to follow. The complainant suffered no injuries and the police notes specifically stated that there were no visible injuries to the complainant including on or about her neck. Liam Thompson presented the Crown with a memo regarding a break down of the complainant’s statement showing implausibility of the allegations along with some source material to show the complainant most likely made false accusations to avoid discipline. After detailed discussions with the Crown, Liam was able to demonstrate that the Crown did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction and that a continued prosecution of the matter was not in the public interest. The charges of assault and assault choking were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to trial after filing detailed 276/278 application for admission of sexual history evidence and messages between the complainant and L.P. L.P. knew the complainant for many many years. The two had dated in their past. The two got reacquainted when the complainant reached out as L.P.’s wife was unwell and L.P. had been searching for a caregiver to help. L.P. was approached by the complainant to assist but thought it was not a good idea. L.P. was lonely and the two began to spend time together. The complainant asked for financial assistance with a few issues and L.P. helped by giving several loans totalling over $15,000. The complainant and L.P. became intimate. L.P. broke off the relationship when he thought that the only reason the complainant was with him was for financial assistance. The friendship soured and L.P. sued the complainant in Small Claims court for the loans. In the defence to the lawsuit, the complainant alleged a sexual assault. She filed the defence counter suing for damages for sexual assault. She then decided to go to the police and L.P. was charged with sexual assault. L.P. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The case proceeded out of the Brampton court. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time gathering the history and obtaining a large volume of messages, voice messages that the client saved, and pictures sent by the complainant to L.P. Upon review of the lawsuit documents, a handwritten note was discovered tendered by the complainant that was considerably different than her statement to police. Further, Joseph disclosed to the Crown the lawsuit documents, and a series of important messages that undermined the complainant’s version of events. The Crown would not withdraw. As such, trial dates were set and motion dates to seek to admit and cross-examine on other sexual history evidence and the large volume of messages and pictures. Joseph Neuberger drafted a 65 page Notice and Factum laying out the defence and the relevance of the history, messages, and pictures as well as the contradictory note of the complainant. After filing the material, further discussions took place with the Crown and as a result the charge of sexual assault was 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.
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.
