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
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn after successful Application brought under section 276/278 of the Criminal Code for the admission of prior sexual history evidence and documents, Newmarket. P.M. was charged several years after the end of his relationship with the complainant. The two dated in high school for about a year and a half. The two broke up and remained friends. Over the course of the time, the complainant started to suggest in messages and over calls that he had forced her into sex on a number of occasions that was not consensual. P.M. remained friends with the complainant but tried to distance himself. After a number of communications over the course of weeks, the complainant stopped communication and then went to the police and P.M. was charged with two counts of historical sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger had Diana Davison assist on the defence, and there was considerable time devoted to investigating the past history o f P.M. and the complainant including gathering all past communications that totalled over 1000 messages, and several letters. The documentation was extremely helpful in understanding the background to the relationship but more importantly the activities between P.M. and the complainant was unusually detailed in the messages. In particular, one letter sent by the complainant just prior to the end of the relationship was highly relevant as to the true nature of their intimacy and significantly rebutted the narrative of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger prepared for trial and brought a motion to introduce prior sexual history evidence, and a series of relevant communications including this one letter. The Application, Factum and Affidavit of the client was drafted and filed. The Application was argued over the course of two days and was successful. The Application and Factum was drafted laying out in great detail the evidence that undermined the complainant’s version of events as well as the defence evidence. The drafting of these applications is very important to laying out a foundation for the admission of prior sexual history and communications between the parties. Once the Application was granted, the Crown spoke with Joseph Neuberger, and a determination was made that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the two charges of sex assault were withdrawn.
B.G. was charged with Voyeurism, Distribution of an Intimate image and Assault, Newmarket. BG discovered through social media that her boyfriend of 3 years was living with and engaged to another woman. RG and the fiancé discussed the relationship over Facebook messenger. In responding to the fiancé’s questions, RG sent photos to prove the relationship. In retaliation the boyfriend sent photos of RG to her family members and then made a complaint to police providing a different version of events. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend BG. Grace Condello conducted extensive research regarding the case law and the facts in the case including extensive messaging between B.G. and the complainant. Grace prepared a package to the Crown Attorney’s office to establish that it was not in the public interest to prosecutor B.G. Thus, the charges of Voyeurism, Distribution of an Intimate Image and Assault were withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trials, Brampton. The client and his wife were having a serious argument. The complainant left the house and went to her brother’s house. Later that evening she called police and R.A was charged. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello were retained to defend R.A. R.A. immediately gave Joseph and Grace a screenshot of a text sent the day after he was charged stating “I am really sorry I lied to police that you hurt me. My brother made me call police and lie about you.” That message was turned over to the officer in charge and the Crown with a letter asking for an investigation into a false statement and possibly a charge of public mischief. Nothing was done about the text. When disclosure was received the statement was extremely brief and so vague it undermined the allegation. Just an assertion that R.A. punched the complainant as he was upset about something about the house. No details or real context. No injuries. After having a series of pre-trials, the Crown agreed that there was no basis to move forward with the criminal case. The charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to the preliminary hearing, Toronto. Mr. Z.C. and his wife lived with his mother and his stepfather in the early 2000s. They moved out of the home in 2006 and in 2021 Z.C. was arrested and charged with historical allegations of sex assault and sexual interference. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph conducted a defence investigation, including a history and timeline of during what years and months the complainant and Z.C. were actually living in the same home as well as who was living in the home. From other sources it appeared that the complainant had enjoyed a close relationship with Z.C. and his wife. There were no signs of any conflict or abuse. Z.C. was full time employed and extremely busy during those years over which the sexual assaults were alleged. In addition, the complainant stated in her police interview that she had taken a criminology course in university that caused her to recall and come forward with the allegations. There was a significant issue about “recovered memory” and reliability of the memories. A preliminary hearing was scheduled but extensive pre-trials and discussions with the assigned Crown resulted in an agreement that Z.C. would sign a common law peace bond and all charges would be withdrawn.
S.J. was charged with Assault out of the Newmarket courthouse. S.J.’s daughter had 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 and charged S.J with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, 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. S.J. completed counseling. Upon completion, Mariya presented a report to the Crown Attorney and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Assault x 4, Utter Threat x 4 and Assault with Weapon all withdrawn prior to setting the trial date, Brampton. The client discovered the complainant (his wife) was having an affair. The two got into a heated argument and P.N. wanted the complainant to leave the home. The complainant called police and P.N. was charged with the above domestic offences. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. The complainant’s statement including historical allegations two of the Assault charges were during a time when P.N was in Vietnam. We were able to obtain his former travel itinerary, credit card statements and other evidence to establish that it was impossible for him to have committed two of the offences. Once disclosed the complainant retained counsel probably due to fear of a charge of public mischief. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the client signed a common law peace bond, and all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Newmarket. S.J.’s daughter had 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 and charged S.J with one count of Assault. S.J. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent her. Mariya spoke to S.J. at 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. S.J. completed counseling. Upon completion, Mariya presented a report to the Crown Attorney and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Assault x 2, Assault – Choke, withdrawn on the day of trial, Brampton. M.G. was in an argument with his wife. When M.G. attempted to call his wife’s parents for assistance, the complainant lunged for the cell phone causing injury to M.G. M.G. pushed the complainant away and went to a bedroom. The complainant, his wife, pursued and called 911. When police arrived, M.G. was arrested with various offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. M.G. made a video recording of when the complainant pursed him into the bedroom. The recording was saved for the defence. In addition, the defence obtained medical records and evidence establishing that the injuries to M.G.’s arm were the result of the complainant digging her nails into M.G. causing not insignificant injuries. Prior to trial, the video and medical evidence was disclosed by Joseph Neuberger, but the Crown wanted to pursue the case. On the day of trial, the complainant, knowing the evidence against her, refused to testify. The Crown withdrew all charges.
Charges of Voyeurism, Distribution of Intimate Images, and Assault, all withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. B.G. discovered through social media that her boyfriend of three years was living with and engaged to another woman. B.G. and the fiancé discussed the relationship over Facebook messenger. In responding to the fiancé’s questions, B.G. sent photos to prove the relationship. In retaliation the boyfriend sent photos of B.G. to her family members and then made a criminal complaint to police providing a very different versions of events. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, as her defence lawyers. Grace Condello conducted an extensive investigation into all of the communications between B.G. and the fiancé. Then Grace Condello prepared a detailed memorandum for the Crown outlining the history and a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. After extensive pre-trial discussions, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Assault Choaking, Threaten Bodily Harm, all withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. R.K. had been in a bitter divorce. His two children were essentially estranged from him. However, at the time of the allegations, they both moved in with R.K. for weekends. The children were upset about R.K. having moved on with his life; being engaged and purchasing a new house with his fiancé. One night after 11:00 p.m. the children confronted R.K. while he was sleeping his bedroom, stating that they are concerned there is no pre-nuptial agreement, and that he is putting their inheritance at risk for this new relationship with a person they did not know well. R.K. who was woken from a deep sleep was upset and told them to leave his room. They would not. R.K. got up and pushed them out of his bedroom while both children started a physical altercation with R.K. Police were called and R.K. was charged with multiple offences. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was hired as the defence lawyer. When all of the statements were obtained, Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with defence disclosure, including the history of the family court proceedings, case law on the right to repel persons who are acting aggressive in your own home, and other source documents including messages that underscore a financial motivation to fabricate allegations and create a situation for R.K. to have lost his new relationship. In addition, the statements of the two children were highly problematic and not plausible. As a result, all criminal charges 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.
