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
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 Thus, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of domestic assault x 2 and utter threats to cause death and or bodily harm, withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Orangeville.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.
Charges of assault x 2 and one count of assault (choking) were withdrawn before setting the matter down for trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Scarborough. The complainant and J.R. were estranged. It was alleged that J.R. got into an argument over child support with the complainant. During the argument, J.R. allegedly punched the complainant in the head and shoulder. When the complainant attended the police station, she recalled prior incidences where on one occasion, she was punched and on another, choked. The complainant also alleged that their toddler daughter witnessed these incidences. Police charged J.R. with two counts of assault and one count of assault- choking. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent JR against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and pictures of injuries on the complainant. Yuvika also requested the prior occurrence when the complainant was arrested for assault on J.R. After several discussions with the Crown and a Judicial Pre-Trial, Yuvika established that the complainant had in fact not be truthful about the allegations. The alleged injuries were inconsistent with the evidence and there were prior incidents of abuse by the complainant. It seemed there was a motive to alienate J.R. for the child of the relationship. It was negotiated that all charges would be withdrawn with the client signing a peace bond.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 and one count of Forcible Confinement withdrawn with a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall Toronto. The complainant was S.P.’s wife who alleged that an argument had taken place between the two during which he assaulted her. When she tried leaving the apartment, S.P. allegedly grabbed her hand and forced her inside the apartment. He then kicked her in the stomach. A witness allegedly heard the commotion and came to assist the complainant. The witness was able to take the complainant to his apartment from where he called 911. To make matters worse, S.P. inadvertently admitted to the police that he tried to stop the complainant from leaving their apartment. Police charged S.P. with two counts of assault and one count of forcible confinement. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained to represent S.P. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and found several weaknesses in the crown’s case. After several Crown and Judicial Pre-Trials, a package was prepared in S.P.’s defence which included letters from an immigration lawyer, regulatory lawyer, upfront therapy reports, and employment letter. Text messages from the complainant were also provided which proved that the complainant had malice and intended to trap S.P. in the criminal justice. Charges were withdrawn with a common law peace bond. A withdrawal was necessary in this case as S.P. is a physician who was a front-line worker throughout the pandemic and was in Canada on a work visa. S.P.’s license to practice medicine was in jeopardy and there was a considerable body of information establishing that S.P. is an excellent and caring physician.
Charges of Assault withdrawn with an 810-peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The complainant was a friend who attended a party hosted by the accused. The complainant got into an argument with one of the co-accused over his financial status. The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the accused and his cousins (co-accused) where he was repeatedly punched and kicked. He also alleged that one of the co-accused grabbed a knife and raised it towards him in a threatening manner. Complainant attended a police station the next morning and made a complaint. G.P. was charged with Assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent G.P. After extensive review of the disclosure, and several meetings with counsel for the co-accused, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw all charges against G.P. G.P. was at risk if the charges were not withdrawn as his citizen application was pending.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton. G.S. was charged with one count of Assault arising from a party with his friends. After a period of drinking an altercation between a number of people. The complainant identified a number of individuals who allegedly assaulted him including G.S. G.S. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, as defence counsel. Mariya requested and received voluminous disclosure including the identification evidence. After careful review of all of the witness evidence, Mariya charted out a series of material inconsistencies which significantly undermined the evidence of the complainant that G.S. was a participant in the altercation. Mariya provided the Crown with an RPC memo outlining the deficiencies in the prosecution case. At the pre-trial with the Crown Attorney Mariya was able to establish serious problems with the case and that it was not in the public interest to prosecute G.S. G.S. entered into a peace bond and the charge of assault was withdraw.
P.B.M. was charged with five counts of Assault, four counts of Forcible Confinement and one count of Criminal Harassment, Toronto. The complainant was his ex-girlfriend. She alleged that P.B.M. was constantly jealous of her and on a number of occasions didn’t let her leave the house but pushed her and grabbed her. P.B.M. had no status in Canada. P.B.M. retained lawyers at Neuberger and Partners to represent him as his Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko carefully reviewed disclosure. It included text messages from the client to the complainant of jealous nature, photos of alleged injuries and the statement of the complainant. Mariya discovered some inconsistences between the alleged injuries of the complainant on the photos and the description of the injuries in the statement of the complainant. A defence medial expert was consulted by the defence. Along with other information, Mariya presented a memo on deficiencies with the Crown’s case and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges. P.B.M. entered into a peace bond and all domestic assault and harassment 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.
