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
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to trial after filing detailed 276/278 application for admission of sexual history evidence and messages between the complainant and L.P. L.P. knew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filing the material, further discussions took place with the Crown and as a result the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.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.
Charge of Asault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates at Milton. It was alleged that N.C. was driving with her ex-boyfriend when a verbal altercation ensued between them. The Complainant alleged that N.C. became angry with him and started slapping him in the face multiple times when he told her that she could not return to work. N.C. used to work at the same company as the Complainant and his superiors had advised him to inform N.C. of her termination. The Complainant alleged that in her anger, N.C. grabbed his ears while driving, jumped onto his lap in the driver’s seat, and began squeezing his face. To get rid of N.C., the Complainant pulled over and allegedly jumped out of the car and called the police. N.C. was charged with one count of simple assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent N.C against the charge. After reviewing the disclosure and speaking with the assigned crown, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw the charge against N.C. on condition that N.C. undergo upfront therapy. Charge of simple assault was withdrawn by way of an 810-peace bond.
Charges of Assault x 2, Criminal Harassment and Assault Choking all withdrawn. T.C. was charged with these serious domestic charges including Choking, two counts of Assault and Criminal Harassment, Toronto. T.C. had a girlfriend who broke up with him. T.C. was very upset. He asked his girlfriend to meet him at her place to allow him to gather his belongings. When the girlfriend arrived at her residence, T.C. allegedly grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to the front door. Further, he allegedly slapped her and hit her on her head. Once inside the girlfriend’s residence, T.C. threw various items around the house. A landlord heard the commotion and asked both parties to leave. A witness who was outside the house when T.C. dragged his girlfriend by the hair called the police. At the police station, the girlfriend provided a historic allegation of choking. T.C. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya had reviewed disclosure and had many conversations with T.C. to get his background, future aspirations and mitigating circumstances. Further, T.C. attended counseling directed by Mariya and Joseph Neuberger, the senior partner of the firm. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney and given the upfront work and the Assessment Therapy report which highlighted a number of emotional issues impacting his judgement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges.
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.
M.F. was charged with Assault, Assault with Weapon, and Breach of Recognizance/Peace Bond out of 1000 Finch courthouse, Toronto. M.F. was bound by a s. 810 peace bond at the time of her conflict with her husband. It was alleged that M.F. became jealous over her husband’s text messages she saw on his phone and started to hit him. Furthermore, it was alleged that she took her laptop and started hitting her husband with her laptop. The husband called police and M.F. was arrested. M.F retained Mariya Protsenko from Neuberger and Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The aggravating factor was the fact that M.F. was previously charged with a Domestic Assault on her ex-husband and she entered into a s.810 peace. Mariya put together a large volume of information on the client – background, employment, status in Canada, text messages with the husband, photos provided by the client, as well as the client’s version of events that would ultimately have been her Defence at trial. Mariya had a number of discussions with the Crown Attorney and encouraged the Crown Attorney to wait until M.F. completed counseling and the counseling report is produced. At the end, the therapy report was excellent, and the Crown recognized deficiencies with the complainant husband’s evidence on the assault allegations. The Crown Attorney agreed to have M.F. enter a common law peace bond and the charges against her were withdrawn.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Newmarket. S.J. was charged with Assault arising from S.J.’s daughter having an altercation with a classmate. Later on, the mother of the classmate came to the house of S.J. to talk about the altercation. The two had an argument and S.J. ended up striking the classmate on her face. Then S.J. and the mother of the classmate started to fight with each other. Afterward, the mother of the classmate called police. Police arrived, spoke to the classmate and her mother after which S.J was charged with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to represent her. Mariya spoke to S.J. in length and received the background story for the altercation between S.J.’s daughter and the classmate. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented S.J.’s side of the story with some corroborating information gathered during the defence investigation. An agreement was made for S.J. to complete conflict management therapy and upon completion the charge was formally withdrawn.
Charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Forcible Confinement withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. B.O. was having a break-up argument with his live-in girlfriend. Tempers got heated and B.O. asked for the complainant to leave. The complainant went down to the concierge and complained of being assaulted. Police were called and B.O. was charged. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges. Once the disclosure was obtained, Joseph Neuberger compared the complainant’s statement with video footage provided by the client. Clearly the video footage provided by the client did not show any physical altercation, but what was interesting was the complainant’s description of the alleged assaults that was wildly different that even the unfolding of the argument that was captured on the video footage. The condo had internal footage in the main hallway and common areas in the home, but not the bedroom. Nevertheless, the complainant had described being pinned up against the front door of the condo while being yelled at to leave. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the video footage to the assigned Crown along with the transcribed statement of the complainant. As a result, all charges were withdrawn. * Unfortunately, not all accused persons have internal surveillance in the main and common areas of their home. Fortunately, this client did.
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.
