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Charge of Assault emanating from a road rage incident withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. A.B. got into an unfortunate argument with a driver that he perceived cut him off. The cars came to a stop and A.B. went to the other car and allegedly punched the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the Crown and sought for his client to take anger management counselling and undertake volunteering at Habitat for Humanity in order for the charge to be withdrawn. After discussions with the Crown, the proposal was agreed to and after completion of the therapy and volunteer hours the charge of Assault was formally withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn, Toronto. D.N. was enjoying a bbq in his backyard with friends, when his former girlfriend and another lady walked into his backyard and started yelling at D.N. It appeared that the two complainants were drunk. D.N. was pushed and slapped. D.N. pushed the complainants away from him and then pushed them to the front of the house to leave. D.N. called police. Unbelievably when the police eventually interviewed everyone, the police charged D.N. with two counts of assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the Crown a very lengthy letter explaining that D.N. had the lawful right to repel an assault and to forcibly remove trespassers from his property so long as the force was reasonable. Joseph Neuberger also obtained video surveillance from the house showing the actual altercation. This was disclosed to the Crown. The charges were withdrawn.
J.L. was charged with a Domestic Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. J.L. and his wife came from China to Canada and had a daughter together in Canada. Being far from family members and friends, they argued a lot. On the night of arrest, they started arguing with each other which escalated into a physical altercation. The complainant, the wife of J.L., called 911 and police arrived. The complainant provided a statement to police and J.L. was arrested for body checking the complainant multiple times. J.L. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners, Newmarket Criminal Lawyers, as his criminal defence lawyer. Mariya drafted the client’s chronology and a detailed memo to the Crown. The client provided video footage of the complainant that put the complainant’s credibility at issue. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she presented defence disclosure including the memo and video. The Crown Attorney agreed to the J.L. completing counseling, and then entered into a common law peace bond. The domestic assault charge was withdrawn.
X.L. was charged with Assault and Forcible Confinement against her boyfriend, Toronto. X.L. and her boyfriend broke up. The boyfriend wanted to leave the apartment but X.L. blocked the doorway. The two began to fight and X.L. called 911. Upon arrival, police officers spoke to both X.L. and her boyfriend. Police officers decided to arrest X.L. X.L. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, as her criminal defence lawyer. X.L. was concerned about her immigration status in Canada due to her criminal charges. X.L. was in Canada on a student visa. Mariya had a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney where she was able to convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charges after some counseling. X.L. completed counseling and Mariya provided a favourable counseling report to the Crown Attorney. The charges of Assault and Forcible Confinement were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Utter Threat and Mischief withdrawn prior to setting the trial date. K.S. was charged with Sexual Assault, Utter Threat and Mischief out of London, Ontario. The complainant was his girlfriend who called 911 because K.S. locked her out of his apartment. The complainant provided a statement to police at the scene where she alleged that K.S. threatened to kill her and broke a window of her car. The complainant also disclosed a historic sexual assault by K.S. K.S. had ended the relationship and it seemed the allegations were revenge. K.S. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP, as his Criminal Defence lawyers. Joseph and Mariya requested disclosure and carefully analyzed it with the client. Joseph and Mariya prepared a letter for the assigned Crown Attorney that outlined the issues with the case and that showed there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. This was clearly a care of a false revenge allegation of sex assault. After multiple pre-trials and emails with the Crown Attorney, the charges were withdrawn.
R. L. was charged with Domestic Assault out of the Newmarket courthouse. R.L. had a marriage breakdown with his wife. The two had a child together who was an infant at the time of the allegations. On the evening of the allegations, R.L. attended his wife’s residence to pick up their child as per their agreement. However, his wife decided that she does not want R.L. to take their child. R.L. disregarded her wishes and proceeded to put a child in the car seat. The wife started to take the child out of the car seat and R.L. pushed her away by her throat to prevent her from taking the child away. The wife called police. Police arrived and shockingly charged R.L. with Assault. R.L. met with Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Newmarket Criminal Lawyers, and retained her to represent him on his charge. Mariya has put together the client’s side of the story, background information of the client and the relationship background with his wife. Mariya had a pre-trial with the prosecutor and convinced the prosecutor that the client has no anger issues, poses no threat to the wife or anyone else and that he was acting in the interest of his child only. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge. Thus, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of domestic assault x 2 and utter threats to cause death and or bodily harm, withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Orangeville. S.G. has been in a high conflict divorce for several years. His son has been seeing both parents on a shared basis. Unfortunately, access has been a challenge and after and argument with S.G. about grades, his son, the complainant, alleged that S.G. had assaulted him and threatened him. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained as defence counsel. The statement of the complainant clearly read with language not of a 13-year-old. It seemed to be a coached statement. Further, Joseph Neuberger obtained CCAS records that had notes about influence and parental alienation by the mother. After detailed discussions with the Crown about the issues arising from the disclosure and the CCAS records as well as not wanting to destroy a father and son relationship, a common peace bond resolution was worked out with the opportunity for S.G. to apply to family court for access and reunification therapy. As such, the charges of assault and utter threats were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after a four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. M.A. had met the complainant at Cherry Beach and the two exchanged Instagram handles. After some time of exchanges message, the two decided to go on a date. The location picked by M.A. was a restaurant that served alcohol, and the complainant for some reason did not want to go. Eventually the two went back to M.A.’s condo and had Sisha on the balcony. As the evening progressed the two wound up on M.A.’s bedroom and the two had intimate contact. The complainant left angry and contacted police two days later. M.A. was charged with sex assault. Joseph Neuberger, Criminal Defence Lawyer Toronto, to defend M.A. After receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison obtained a series of messages exchanged between M.A. and the complainant. The Crown was going to use the messages to establish a plan that M.A. sought to execute to manipulate the complainant to not go out but to come to his home for sex. Aside from this being a male sexual aggression stereotype, the messages when put into context showed mutual flirting, and a determined intention of the complainant to arrange date at M.A.’s home to have Shisha on his balcony. Further, the complainant provided a second statement that seemed to contradict the first statement on how the sexual encounter unfolded. At trial, cross-examination lasted the better part of two days wherein the complainant was shown to have serious internal inconsistencies in her evidence and made crucial admissions including that she was telling M.A. that she was “close” and climaxed. This came out under intense cross-examination and were two piece of important information the complainant intentionally left out of both of her two police statements. This was in stark contrast to her evidence in-chief during which she stated that she was not enjoying any part of the evening, and during sexual activity was in pain and had blacked out. In cross-examination she admitted to making a false statement about a particular sex act, then eventually agreed she willingly went to M.A.’s bedroom and was kissing him passionately. As noted above, with further pressure on cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger the complainant made the two major admissions. In addition, the defence spent time with the client getting him ready to testify. At trial the Court accepted much of his evidence as being consistent and more plausible. When the Court considered all of the evidence, M.A. was found not guilty of sexual assault.
Client found not guilty of sex assault after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. X.G. was a massage therapist charged with sexually assaulting a patient. X.G. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious sexual abuse charges. The complainant texted XG that she was dissatisfied about the massage she received. X.G. attempted to placate an angry customer by apologizing. The prosecution tried to use the purported apology as an admission of having committed the offence. However, XG and the complainant spoke two different languages. They were effectively speaking at cross-purposes. Christopher Assie was able to use X.G.’s purported apology to corroborate his account of their interaction. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. In a detailed judgement the Court found X.G. not guilty of sexual assault.
Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn with a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Oshawa. The complainant was D.M.’s girlfriend. She alleged that D.M. had been harassing her for over three weeks. She had asked him to stop e-mailing her, but he would instead show up at her place of employment and wait for her to finish her shift so he could speak with her. Complainant’s parents also alleged that they had found D.M. running away from their residence at one time. Police were called and D.M. was charged with criminal harassment. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent D.M. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and as well as source information from the client. A theme developed in reviewing the statement of the complainant and her parents. Ms. Johri established that the Complainant was caught dating D.M. by her parents who they did not approve of. They had asked her stop dating D.M. but she did not stop. The two then dated in secrecy thereafter. When the Complainant’s parents caught D.M. leaving their residence, the Complainant alleged criminal harassment. Yuvika conducted a crown pre-trial where she convinced the crown to withdraw the charge as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
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.
