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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
