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Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn with a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Oshawa.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Charges of assault x 2 and one count of assault (choking) were withdrawn before setting the matter down for trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Scarborough.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.
Charges of Assault, and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court, Scarborough. W.C. and his wife had a series of escalating arguments about their marriage. During one argument, W.C. was cooking and had a knife in his hand. The complainant called police and alleged that W.C. had grabbed her and threatened her with the knife while pointing it at her. This resulted in charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang, combined the team at Neuberger & Partners who assisted W.C. with his defence. After detailed review of the disclosure and numerous pre-trials, the Crown was persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. W.C. was making dinner during the argument in question and had the knife in his hand as part of his preparation of dinner. Further, based upon the manner of the alleged physical assault as described by the complainant in her statement to police, the defence was able to establish the description was frankly implausible. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw all domestic abuse charges.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.M. was charged with sexual assault during a message of his neighbour. A.M. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Brampton Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. A.M. was alleged to have given his neighbour a massage. During the massage, the complainant alleged that A.M. had massaged her breasts and had massaged/touched her clitoris and buttocks without consent thus giving rise to a charge of Sexual/Sex Assault. A.M.’s version of events was that after a brief conversation with the complainant regarding her back pain and other ailments outside of their homes, he offered to provide her with Turmeric – which he knew to be help with physical ailments. He offered to give her some if she did not have any. She accepted his offer and went into his home to retrieve it. While discussing various topics in the home, he pointed out a tube of topical anesthetic cream that had been prescribed to him by a doctor to help with his own muscle pain. He offered her some and she accepted. He applied the cream to her back. He denied touching any other body part and flatty denied Sexual Assault. The complainant told the police that A.M. had then tried to ‘bribe her’ by offering her some jewellery after he assaulted her. The incident occurred about a week before Christmas. The complainant had distorted the interaction, characterized innocuous events as nefarious, and had fabricated the sexual assault. Mr. Assie was able to demonstrate through careful cross-examination that the complainant’s account made no sense and did not withstand scrutiny. What she characterized as an attempted ‘bribe’ was in fact the reasonable actions of a small business owner who was simply trying to make a sale during the lucrative Christmas season by presenting her the costume jewelry he sold in the hopes of turning her into a customer. Mr. Assie also spent a significant amount of time preparing A.M. to testify in his own defence. A.M. was an immigrant and was not entirely fluent in English. He was an older gentleman who had never been in trouble with the law before and was very nervous to testify. The only way to help A.M. from feeling overly nervous at trial was to spend several days conducting mock examinations-in-chief and mock cross-examinations of the facts and basis of the Sex Assault charge. All the work preparing A.M. for trial paid off as the judge ultimately ruled that she accepted his version of events and found him not guilty of sexual assault.
*This is an important example of how it is vital to helping a client prepare for giving evidence in court. This type of preparation of the defence evidence resulted in the client being believed by the trial judge on the sex assault charge. At Neuberger & Partner, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, Joseph Neuberger, over three decades of assisting clients has developed a defined process for defences on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Sexual Exploitation, Domestic Assault and Assault. All lawyers in Neuberger & Partners follow the same detailed approach to defending and helping clients succeed in their cases.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial, Kingston. N.C. was charged with one count of sexual assault out of Kingston courthouse. N.C. invited some friends over to his house. After some drinking and watching movies, N.C. ended up having a sexual intercourse with one of the attending friends. Later that night, the friend made a complaint that sexual intercourse was not consensual, and that N.C. had forced himself on her. N.C. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to represent him the Sex Assault charge. Mariya spoke to the client and carefully reviewed two statements of the complainant, two witness statements and other evidence provided to the defence. Defence interviews were conducted to determine what was observed of the two parties that night. Mariya conducted several pre-trials with the Crown and provided a memo on material discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and witnesses as well as internal inconsistencies. The Crown Attorney agreed that she had a weak case for a reasonable prospect of conviction. N.C entered into a peace bond and the charge of Sexual Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 3, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Threat Death, Forcible Confinement and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario of Justice Kitchener. A.S. and the complainant have been married for two years. Unfortunately due to stresses A.S. and the complainant argued frequently. A.S. sought a divorce and the argument escalated and continued for several days. A.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger, Toronto Criminal Lawyer, was retained to defend the domestic abuse allegations. After careful review of the evidence and sending the client for intense therapy related to anger and conflict management, Joseph Neuberger, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of all domestic assault related charges for a peace bond.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client was on a dating app and planned to meet someone. The client and the person had been exchanging messages and the subject of money came up. The conversation led to a discussion of sexual services for money but was a bit vague. The client attended and the complainant seemed young, and he left. However, the complainant called police and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend A.A. After receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger charted out the statements of the complainant which demonstrated a number of significant inconsistencies. In addition, disclosure was requested for forensic testing of the bedding as the complainant had alleged sexual acts that would have left DNA. The bedding was seized by police. The testing came back negative for any DNA or biological evidence to support the complainant’s version of events. Further, Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo setting out the deficiencies with the Crown’s case including disclosing several messages and the dating site profile of the complainant noting an age over 20. After several judicial pre-trials, it was agreed that the client would sign a common law peace bond and the Sexual Assault charge, and the Sexual Interference charge 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.
