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
Z.L. was charged with Domestic Assault against his wife. ZL retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend himself against these charges. Mr. Assie suggested that ZL do some up-front counselling with a well-respected therapist. ZL agreed and completed the counselling. Mr. Assie analyzed the case and documented the discrepancies between the complainant’s allegations and the observations made by the police. He waited until the counselling was completed and had a favorable report by the therapist before engaging with the prosecutor. Armed with a therapist report and the ability to point out the inconsistencies in the evidence, Mr. Assie was able to convince the prosecutor that it was not in the public interest in prosecuting the matter. ZL agreed to enter into a peace bond without admitting any criminal or civil liability and his criminal charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 6, Sexual Interference x 5, Assault x 4, Threaten Death, Invitation to Sexual Touch all withdrawn after the completion of a five-day preliminary hearing, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.H. was charged with various domestic offences including sex assault against his former wife, and stepdaughters and several assault and sexual interference charges as against his biological daughter who he had with the complainant. A.H. is a prominent dentist, and he began a relationship with a patient after she ceased being a patient of his office. The two soon had a religious marriage and had a baby daughter. The two blended their families but after about a year and half the relationship started to sour over financial issues. While returning from a trip to Iran, A.H. ended the relationship with the complainant due to his perceived harm by the complainant as to her manipulation about money and theft of funds. The couple had arguments over WhatsApp for a few days and then when A.H. told the complainant to move to her own residence and that he would not pay for her residence, the complainant attended the police station and multiple offences were alleged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After obtaining the various statements and messages provided by the complainant to the Crown, Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a preliminary hearing where the Crown agreed to call all of the complainants to testify save for the youngest child. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison, legal researcher with the firm, developed a detailed and strong 276/278 Application to have the Court allow into evidence hundreds of messages not disclosed by the complainant, as well as pictures, cards and other documents that the defence sought to undermine the evidence of the complainants. The Application was successful. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the former wife and her two daughters extensively. The testimony became hostile, and it became evident due to the design of the cross-examination that all three complainants colluded. At the end of cross-examination, an adjournment was sought by the Crown and then after lengthy review of the transcripts of the preliminary hearing the Crown withdrew all of the domestic abuse charges, sexual interference and sexual assault charges. It was a complete vindication for A.H.
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.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after trial in the Superior Court, Barrie. J.G. was charged with a historical sexual assault of his cousin. The allegation was that sometime between 2007 and 2009, J.G. drove his younger female cousin home after she was too drunk to walk home and during the drive stopped and committed a sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Diana Davison and Grace Condello. The client flatly denied the allegation. The evidence of the complainant consisted of two statements provided in 2020 and essentially rested upon repressed memories that were recovered 11 years later during a stressful argument with her husband over separation. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the complainant outlining key inconsistencies between her two statements, and then her in-court testimony at trial. In addition, cross-examination focused on the storyline of the complainant, her drinking habits in 2007 to 2009, including the night in question, and the evidence of her “repressed” memories. Of particular interest was cross-examination that established her first statement noted that she had experienced blackouts and had a patchy memory. Her second statement, expanded considerably on additional details that included a memory of a lack of memory. The client and his wife were prepared as defence witnesses. They testified about the family dynamic at the time of the allegations, how close the family was and how the complainant remained a close cousin and friend through 2007 to 2019 when the allegation was made. As this was a judge alone trial, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written submissions detailing the frailties of the evidence and why J.G. ought to be acquitted. The judgement of the court adopted the defence submissions that “the reliability of the complainant’s memory is integral to the Crown’s case. When her memory takes on the appearance of a chalkboard which can be erased and rewritten at will, her evidence loses all reliability.” The judgement is important with respect to assessing recovered memories, and the inherent frailties. In particular, the Court noted that recovered memories should be viewed with suspicion. In our opinion, courts must resist new formulations of “recovered memory syndrome” and recognize the frailty of junk science about memory.
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.
