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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto.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 After numerous discussions with the Crown Attorney, the charge of Domestic Assault against the client was withdrawn.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.
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.
Charges of Domestic Assault were withdrawn by way of a section 810 peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. AD and the Complainant were in a relationship for over three years. They were engaged to be married and were living with each other. The Complainant alleged that AD started suspecting that the Complainant was cheating on him. She also alleged that AD would follow her on numerous occasions due to which she broke their engagement and asked him to move out. On one occasion, the Complainant alleged that AD followed her into a club where he punched her several times on her face. To make matters complicated, the Complainant’s son called AD to make death threats against him. AD met the police to report the Complainant’s son, however, got arrested himself for Assault on the Complainant. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent AD against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure which included several pictures of injuries on the Complainant’s face. At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika established that the Complainant was in fact cheating on AD while they were weeks away from getting married. She also showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw the charges against AD. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against AD.
Charges of Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial, Halton Region. Mr. N.M. had separated from his wife and divorce proceedings were filed. Shortly after the filings, Mr. N.M. was charged with Domestic Assault of his former wife, and assault of his son. There was a serious issue of parental alienation involved. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After obtaining and reviewing the statements of the two complainants, Joseph Neuberger disclosed the divorce proceeding documents to the Crown and conducted an extensive pre-trial. It was evident that the criminal allegations were being used as leverage in the family court proceedings for sole custody and an unequal division of assets. Further, Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of a report done by a therapist regarding an assessment with the children including the son who was the complainant. That was also provided to the Crown along with additional defence disclosure. As a result of the defence disclosure, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn, Newmarket. Mr. E.C. was living with his girlfriend. After an evening of drinking the two got into an argument because E.C. did not want to get married. The incident became physical and police were called. E.C. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the client photographed as he sustained injuries from the altercation. Further, after receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger brought a civil motion to have the complainant removed from E.C.’s home. The complainant had no interest or right to the property and the bail for some reason excluded E.C. from his home. Joseph Neuberger did not act on the bail hearing. The motion was successful and the complainant was removed. Joseph Neuberger then had the bail amended. During the course of the proceedings the complainant made numerous outrageous allegations. After discussions with the Crown Attorney, it was agreed that E.C. would sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. As a result, the charge of assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault withdrawn on the eve of trial, Newmarket. Y.Z. was in a on and off relationship with the complainant. The couple broke up in 2018 when the complainant at that time was charged with assault related to Y.Z. The couple reconciled. During a five day period the complainant was staying at the home of Y.Z. and on the last day an argument and physical altercation arose. The complainant reported to York Regional Police and Y.Z. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to represent Y.Z. Diana Davison was brought on the file to assist. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and carefully analyzed the two statements of the complainant noting oddities about the evidence. Joseph Neuberger brought a 276/278 motion to permit cross-examination of the complainant on prior sexual history evidence and text messages exchanged relevant to evidence given by the complainant. These applications are complex and need to be drafted carefully with supporting case law. The Application was drafted to set out not only the defence but the factum mapped out the issues with the complainant’s evidence. The Application was opposed by the Crown but Joseph Neuberger was successful and given full ability to cross-examine the complainant on all areas sought. After the successful application Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the draft outline of his cross of the complainant and a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction. After some discussions the Crown withdrew the Sexual Assault and Assault charge. * It is important to note that there were subtle inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence that required creative drafting of the cross and weaving together evidence the demonstrated some falsities of the complainant’s evidence. The preparation of the Application and Cross required considerable time but proved to establish the client was innocent.
Charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Brampton. It was alleged that LSM along with two other co-accused(s) arrived outside the Complainant’s residence and started an argument. The argument was allegedly over money the Complainant owed LSM and the co-accused(s). The argument escalated and Complainant alleged that he was punched several times and as a result, dislocated his shoulder. A friend of the Complainant also alleged that he tried to intervene in the altercation and was hit with a wooden object kept on the floor by LSM. LSM was charged with Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm. Several pictures of the injuries and medical reports of the Complainant were provided in the disclosure. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent LSM against the charges. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and conducted several meetings with Counsels for the co-accused(s). At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw all charges against LSM. A withdrawal was necessary in this case as LSM was an international student from India and a conviction would impact his immigration status. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against LSM.
Charge of Assault was withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 2201 Finch Avenue. The Complainant alleged that YL assaulted him over a disagreement involving their five-month-old corgi puppy. The argument allegedly escalated when YL scratched the Complainant’s hand when she tried to take the puppy out of his hand. Due to loud noises, the neighbours called 911 and police charged YL with Assault on arrival. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent Y.L against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and worked with the Complainant’s Counsel to show that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction in this case. Crown agreed with defence’s position and as a result, assault charges were withdrawn against YL.
Charge of Criminal Harassment, and Voyeurism withdrawn prior to trial. M.F. had been charged with allegedly sending inappropriate messages and videos obtained of the complainant over a period of several month. The contact was anonymous but due to tech search by police the client was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After careful review of the evidence and extensive discussions with the Crown, and some remedial steps taken by the client, all 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.
