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
The client was charged with Domestic Assault out of the Scarborough courthouse. She and her boyfriend had a flight during which her boyfriend made some video recordings. The boyfriend called 911 and advised that he was being pushed, pulled and restrained by A.F. Police attended and charged A.F. Originally the Crown Attorney sought a conviction and jail. A.F. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. After receiving disclosure, there were a number of issues related to the veracity of the complainant’s evidence. A.F. had sustained some injury. Ms. Protsenko arranged for some counseling as the couple clearly had issues dealing with stressful events in their relationship. Once completed, Ms. Protsenko conducted a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, provided the counseling report and after discussions about the issues with evidence of the complainant, the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 4, withdrawn on the first appearance. R.K. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal defence lawyer. The charges stem from alleged assaults dating back to 2010. The two parties separated and had a long divorce process. About 12 years later, which there were other issues surrounding the children, the complainant decided to go to police and alleged historical abuse allegations. Joseph Neuberger prepared a package of materials for the Crown to assess, including a fairly lengthy family court trial decision, as well as other source material showing not only motive to fabricate about animus. Discussions ensued between defence and the Crown, and it was decided that all charges be withdrawn for no reasonable prospect of conviction.
WP was charged with sexual assault against his former long-term girlfriend. WP and the complainant dated for five years. WP tried to break off the relationship several times, though he still cared for her deeply. After the final breakup, the complainant left WP a concerning voicemail. WP was so troubled by the message that he went to her home to check on her wellbeing. She let him into her home and he proceeded to comfort her. One thing led to another and WP succumbed to temptation and they had sex. WP immediately realized that he had made a mistake. The next day they talked again and he apologized for giving her mixed messages. He reiterated that he still cared for her but that they just could not be in a relationship together. She pleaded with him to get back together, but he stood his ground. Two weeks later she went to the police and alleged that WP came to her house and anally raped her while her son was outside the bedroom door.
WP retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious charges. WP had all their text messages from the last few years. The first task was for Mr. Assie was argue a 276?278 Application to be permitted to introduce the text messages to undermine the allegations of the complainant. This motion was complex and Diana Davison assisted with the drafting of the Application. After careful and detailed argument, the Application was granted. The text messages were devastating to the complainant’s credibility. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. The judge had no difficulty acquitting WP and stated in his judgment, “That having been said, the very real possibility – bordering on a probability – does exist that once [the complainant] realized that WP had used her that day, she decided to leverage the Criminal Justice System to ‘punish’ him for what he had done. That interpretation is supported by the manner in which [the complainant] responded to simple questions put to her that ought to have yielded simple and forthright answers. Answers – when they finally did arrive – took the form of protracted responses that consistently reflected the hurt and anger that [the complainant] had been experiencing right up to and including the time of her cross-examination.”
Charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial in the Newmarket Court. C.S. and his wife were having ongoing arguments. On a particular evening an argument broke out over C.S. preparing dinner. During the argument, the hot dinner was thrown at C.S. and caused burns to his face. He called 911. When police arrived both C.S. and the complainant were interviewed. It was determined that C.S. was the aggressor and was charges with domestic abuse charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the injuries reviewed by a medical expert and sent the report along with the treatment notes of C.S.’s treating physician to the Crown. In addition, a memo was drafted by Joseph Neuberger and sent to the Crown about how gender bias was palpable given the assessment of the police who arrived on scene and determined that C.S. was the aggressor. As a result of the defence work, the Crown withdrew the charges.
B.M. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault out of Old City Hall courthouse, Toronto. B.M. and his girlfriend met each out online and both were students at the University of Toronto. After the two started living together, regular arguments began. B.M. decided to move out but didn’t tell his girlfriend. Once she found out, B.M. and his girlfriend began fighting. B.M. called 911 and police arrived. Police officers took statements from both B.M. and his girlfriend and decided to arrest both for Assault. However, while at the police station, the girlfriend provided a more detailed statement and police officers decided not to proceed with the charge against her. B.M. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko to represent as his criminal defence lawyers Toronto. Joseph and Mariya obtained disclosure. They organized it and analyzed it. The statement B.M.’s girlfriend provided at the police station contained some information that could have potentially resulted in an additional charge of Sexual Assault. Furthermore, the University of Toronto investigation officers conducted an investigation and included a Sex Assault allegation in their report. Joseph and Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the Crown Attorney very careful in order to make sure additional charges were not laid. After the defence investigation and interview of a number of key defence witnesses, detailed discussions about the evidence resulted in the Crown deciding to withdraw all charges. B.M. entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
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.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a very prestigious boys’ school. After a school event, various teachers attended a party to celebrate the end of term. At some point latter in the evening, K.Q. and another teacher were cuddling on a couch at a colleague’s home. There was some intimate touching but one particular intimate sexual touch under clothing in the chest area of the complainant became an issue. After the touch, the complainant bit K.Q. K.Q. apologized the next day and apologized in text. The complainant went to police and K.Q. was charged with Sex Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko and Diana Davison. The history of the complainant and K.Q. was extremely relevant as to how and why K.Q. interacted with K.Q. just prior to and during the impugned evening. After careful review of all the prosecution evidence, and the history provided by the client, there was a dynamic of over two years with intimate physical touching and an emotional bond wherein there were mixed signals that impacted how K.Q. thought about his relationship with the complainant. Such acts included hand holding in public, dancing, nights at each other’s home, and other relevant intimate contact. The complainant maintained it was a purely platonic relationship. For trial, careful, and strategic attention was given to advancing the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent to defend the sexual assault allegation. Considerable time was spent on the case law, crafting the cross-examination of the complainant, and preparing K.Q. for testimony. A motion was brought prior to trial under section 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code to advance evidence of prior sexual history. The defence motion under section 276 and 278 was successful. At trial cross-examination was able to bring out a significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant with her in-court testimony, as well as various critical factors prior to the date of the alleged offence that impacted the state of mind of K.Q. The defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent is a very complex defence and accordingly written submissions were provided by the defence to assist the court to make critical determinations of fact and law. Extensive time was spent on drafting the closing submissions. As a result, K.Q. was found not guilty of the offence of Sexual Assault.
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.
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.
