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Charges of domestic assault x 2 and utter threats to cause death and or bodily harm, withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Orangeville.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 As such, the charges of assault and utter threats were withdrawn.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.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. J.B.I. was charged with Assault out of North York courthouse. He and his wife had recently arrived from China and were going through some marital issues. On one of the evenings, J.B.-I. and his wife got into an argument. The wife was having a difficulty adjusting to a new life in Canada and was suffering from depression and anxiety. The argument escalated into a physical fight and the wife alleged that J.B.I. pushed her. J.B.-I. was arrested and released from police station. J.B.-I. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya went through the disclosure including the CAHM report on the complainant. Mariya was contacted by a counsel who was hired by the complaint. Mariya worked with the complainant’s counsel and submitted documents for the Crown Attorney to review. After numerous discussions with the Crown Attorney, the charge of Domestic Assault against the client was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Domestic Assault, and three counts of Threaten Death, after a seven-day trial by Zoom in the Superior Court, Newmarket. K.Y. had a religious marriage with the complainant. They were not civilly married. Over the course of the first year of their relationship, arguments emerged about how K.Y. was not willing to have a civil marriage to create a legal marriage in Ontario. In addition, numerous arguments occurred regarding financial expectations of the complainant. After about 16 months of the relationship, the complainant attended the hospital after an extensive verbal argument about the demise of their relationship. The complainant attended the hospital due to falling on the ice but when there had disclosed to a nurse that she was subjected to abuse over the entire relationship with K.Y, and ultimately K.Y. was charged with multiple offences related to domestic abuse including sex assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend K.Y. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure and then had K.Y. retain a family lawyer to work with Joseph. The importance of the correct family lawyer in the divorce case was vital to uncovering the reason for fabrication. There were three separate statements provided by the complainant and a few messages that were disclosed to the defence. After careful analysis of the statements there were a number of important inconsistencies but more importantly a general lack of coherence. Joseph Neuberger worked with the family lawyer on the Reply and the discoveries (in the family law proceedings) that provided a robust source of evidence to cross-examine the complainant on to undermine her credibility. In particular, the complainant had filed several documents in the family court proceedings to attempt to convince the family court that there was a legal marriage in order to seek support payments, division of the assets of K.Y. and other financial remedies. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the documents with the family lawyer, and the documents appeared to be fraudulent. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, filed through a 276/278 motion extensive material including WhatsApp messages spanning the entire relationship, family court documents and other evidence to support the defence. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on the documents and was able to establish that the complainant had falsified a marriage licence, marriage certificate, a religious document promising payment from K.Y. of $150,000.00, all of which the Court concluded that the complainant had knowingly participated in providing false documents to establish a legal marriage to allow her to claim significant amounts of money from K.Y. Further, during cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, there were material inconsistencies established on each charge, not only between the statements and in-court testimony, but also in relation to the preliminary hearing. There were also recordings made by the complainant of several arguments during which threats were made by K.Y. Yet when reviewed carefully, did not amount to threats to cause death. Further, the defence spent considerable time with K.Y. preparing him to testify, and at trial, K.Y. testified and his evidence was accepted by the court. It was very important for K.Y. to testify and tell the truth. At the end of the trial, Joseph Neuberger, drafted a 75-page written closing argument to assist the court with properly applying evidence to avoid myth-based reasoning. Ultimately, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine who was telling the truth at trial, but further found that the complainant’s credibility was severely damaged by her involvement in falsifying legal documents. K.Y. was found not guilty of all charges of Sexual Assault, Assault and Threatening.
This case was a rare case where the complainant had gone to the extent of creating legal marriage documents that with careful review by Joseph Neuberger were proved to be false. It was clear in this case that the complainant was willing to fabricate evidence to suit her desire for financial gain. This significantly undermined her credibility and any ability of the court to rely upon her evidence.
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.
