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
Client found not guilty of six counts of Sexual Assault after a five-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. F.R. and the Complainant were related to each other as cousins. Despite the age difference of 20 years, F.R. and the Complainant would party with common friends on a regular basis which included alcohol and marijuana use. The Complainant was 18 years old and F.R. was 38 years old. On one occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was at F.R.’s residence. On this day with her common friends, they were consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana. At around 4 am, she alleged that she went to sleep and was not quite conscious of her surrounding. She claimed to recall the event in scenes. The Complainant alleged that F.R. walked inside her bedroom with his dog, sat on the bed beside her, and rubbed her buttocks. She claimed to be aware of what was happening, however, did not know how to tell F.R. to stop. She claimed that F.R. only stopped when her friend walked into the room. On the second occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was visiting her boyfriend’s residence with F.R. Her boyfriend was F.R.’s friend and also 20 years older than the Complainant. On this occasion, the Complainant, F.R., and her boyfriend were drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. At some point during the evening, the Complainant’s boyfriend left his apartment leaving the Complainant alone with F.R. The Complainant alleged that she was drunk and laying in bed. The main lights in the room were off but there were LED lights in the room. The Complainant alleged that she was covered in paper towel. At one point, F.R. proceeded to rub the Complainant’s butt for a few seconds. He allegedly stopped when the Complainant told him that she did not want them to be incest. On the third occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was once again at her boyfriend’s residence with F.R. and another common friend. As usual, they were drinking and smoking marijuana. The Complainant alleged that after her friend left the apartment, she fell asleep on the bed with her boyfriend and F.R. However, when she woke up, she felt as though her vagina was stretched. She suspected that F.R. may have penetrated her vagina on this night. The Complainant further alleged that she confronted F.R. about this and he allegedly admitted to doing so. On the fourth occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was hanging out at F.R.’s residence with a friend. Once again, she sleeps on the same bed as F.R. with her friend next to her. She alleged that she felt F.R.’s hands inside her pants and was trying to digitally penetrate her vagina. The Complainant woke up and turned away from F.R. On the fifth occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was once again sleeping in the same bed as F.R. after a long night of partying. On this occasion, she alleged that F.R. allegedly put his hands inside her pants and was rubbing her vagina. She claimed to have moved away from him and continued sleeping. On the last occasion, the Complainant, F.R., and their common friends went to a social gathering at a hotel. On this day, the Complainant’s friend alleged that she saw F.R. touch the Complainant’s buttock while she was asleep. On a later date, F.R. was confronted by the group of friends. The witness and the Complainant alleged that F.R. admitted that he had touched the Complainant inappropriately. As a result, F.R was charged with six counts of sexual assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent F.R. against the charges. Yuvika thoroughly reviewed the disclosure and the Complainant’s statement. She discovered numerous inconsistencies in the Complainant’s allegation. At trial, the Complainant was crossed examined for 2 days by Yuvika Johri. During cross examination, it was established that there were serious reliability concerns with the Complainant’s narrative of what may have happened or if they happened at all. For example, during examination in chief, the Complainant testified that for the longest time, she believed her boyfriend to be the reason for her stretched vagina until F.R. allegedly admitted to her months later that he was responsible for it. However, during cross examination, the Complainant changed her evidence and explained that she believed F.R. to be responsible for the act from the beginning and claimed to have confirmed with her boyfriend the next day who told her that they did not engage sexually with each other. Yuvika Johri also cross examined the witness who claimed to have seen the alleged butt rubbing at the hotel. Yuvika Johri established that prior to noticing anything, the Complainant had tainted the witness’s opinion about F.R. (who happened to be F.R.’s girlfriend) by sharing the allegations with her. With this knowledge, the witness kept an eye out to observe anything out of the ordinary between F.R. and the Complainant. Yuvika Johri established that although F.R and the Complainant were sleeping next to each other, they were covered by a blanket. The witness was looking to spot inappropriate touching, however, could not with 100 percent certainty confirm that anything that she may have observed was an intentional act. Defence was able to establish a reasonable doubt against all the allegations and F.R. was found not guilty of six counts of sexual assault. A finding of not guilty was important in this matter as the client was facing incarceration for a lengthy period of time if convicted.
Client acquitted of five counts of Assault, two counts of Sexual Assault, and two counts of Uttering Threats mid-trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant alleged that she was a new immigrant to Canada with her one-year-old child. She was married to S.A. who sponsored her visa to immigrate to Canada. After landing, she alleged that within one week, S.A. started subjecting her and their child to cruelty. On the first occasion, the Complainant alleged that there was an argument in relation to dowry. S.A. allegedly got angry that the Complainant did not bring more gold from India. This is when he allegedly twisted her hands while she was holding her son. She claimed that S.A. twisted her hand to get a gold bangle out of her hand. On the second occasion, there was an argument in relation to their son. The Complainant claimed that S.A. used to hate their child, however, on this occasion, he took the child on a walk. Once back, there was an argument in relation to the clothing that the child was wearing. The Complainant alleged that S.A. slapped the Complainant on her face and threatened to kill her and their child if she went to the police. On the third occasion, it was alleged that the Complainant’s parents had sent a present to their house. S.A. allegedly threw the gift in the garbage. This upset the Complainant who initiated an argument with S.A. She claimed that S.A. became angry and started pushing the Complainant out of the house. S.A. allegedly pushed the Complainant while she was holding their son in her hands. On the fourth occasion, the Complainant alleged that one night, S.A., asked the Complainant to the living room. He allegedly kissed the Complainant and began touching her breasts. When she told him no, he pushed her on the couch. The Complainant claimed that she refused to engage sexually with him, but S.A. mounted her and forced oral sex on her. He then sexually assaulted her by penetrating her vagina. On the next occasion, the Complainant alleged that there was an argument with S.A. over the type of toy car their son should get. The Complainant alleged that S.A. started pushing the Complainant which led her to fall on the floor. He then stood over her and punched her face which left a black eye and bleeding from her nose. On the next occasion the Complainant alleged that she was pushed repeatedly until she fell on a suitcase which left a mark on her leg. On the last occasion, the Complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted in her vagina in front of their child. She claimed that she wanted to go to the park. However, S.A. demanded sexual intercourse before taking them anywhere. The Complainant alleged that S.A. pushed her on the bed, kept their child on the floor, mounted her, and penetrated her with his penis. During the assault, her slapped her face while their child cried on the floor. Yuvika Johri from Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure carefully and discovered that the Complainant had previously been arrested for assaulting S.A. She waited until her charges were withdrawn to lay these allegations against S.A. It became clear that the Complainant had a motive to fabricate and these charges were being brought as revenge for her own arrest. Yuvika Johri also compiled items such as pictures and videos which raised serious concerns about the allegations made by the Complainant. A s.276/278 application was prepared. However, prior to trial, the Complainant travelled to India claiming medical issues in relation to her parents. Due to shortage of interpreters at the courthouse, the trial was adjourned to a later date. When the trial was scheduled for the second time, the Complainant travelled back to Toronto and testified in person. During cross examination, the Complainant testified that she was in Canada all along. Upon being confronted with her email to the officer in charge claiming to be in India, the Complainant changed her evidence that she was in India all along and was not in Canada. The matter could not be concluded within the time scheduled for the trial so further trial dates were secured. Once again, the Complainant left for India with no return ticket to Canada. She refused to provide her Toronto address to the police claiming safety reasons. The Crown brought a remote testimony application to allow the Complainant to testify from India. Yuvika Johri cross examined the officer in charge for two hours. She was able to show the court that the complainant had gone on an indefinite vacation while being the main witness in a serious criminal case who was in the middle of a cross examination. Yuvika Johri was able to show that her non-attendance impacted the defence’s ability to make full answer and defence. The crown’s application was dismissed and because of the Complainant’s non-attendance and prejudice to the defence, an acquittal was entered on all counts against S.A.
Charges of Sexual Assault against A.B. stayed due to unreasonable delay pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.B. was charged with a serious sexual assault involving his former girlfriend. The Crown was seeking a custodial sentence and various ancillary orders including registration with the sex offender registrar if A.B. were found guilty. The matter had a lengthy history of delay with a significant portion of delay attributable to the Crown as well as significant institutional delay. Michael Bury spent considerable time assessing the delay and conducting recent case law research to determine the prospects of making a successful stay application argument before the scheduled trial date. The stay application was argued in advance of trial and after hearing from both Michael Bury and the Crown, the Judge hearing the application agreed that A.B.’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and ordered the charges stayed for this reason.
P.M. found not guilty following a trial on a charge of Sexual Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice, Kitchener. P.M. and V.A. were involved in a brief boyfriend girlfriend relationship. During the relationship, the complainant started demonstrating several behaviours which caused P.M. serious concerns about any future together with the complainant. On one occasion, while at P.M.’s home with other family members in close proximity, P.M. and V.A. had an intimate interaction in the basement. P.M. was not sexually experienced. V.A. was sexually aggressive towards P.M. and initiated activity which P.M. was uncomfortable engaging in, especially with other family members nearby. P.M. was afraid to end the relationship because of V.A.’s erratic behaviour. Ultimately, V.A. decided to breakup with P.M. by publicly announcing that she had decided she was a lesbian which was not true. This caused significant hardship for P.M. at the school they both attended and he was bullied by other students as a result. P.M. decided to date another mutual friend and ended contact with V.A. V.A. found out and was angry at him, even though they had broken up. As a result, she decided to contact the police and have sexual assault charges laid against P.M. P.M. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to defend him. P.M. decided to take the matter to trial. Reliability and credibility were the central issues at trial. The complainant was cross-examined at length by Michael Bury regarding the events leading up to and including the allegations. While the trial judge found V.A. to be credible overall, her lack of recall on very important details following the cross-examination did ultimately raise both credibility and reliability concerns which the court could not ignore. Applying the relevant legal principles, the trial judge found P.M. Not Guilty as the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Historical charge of indecent assault withdrawn at the second day of a two-day trial. The complainant, in his sixties, alleged indecent assault by his cousin of the same age during the 1970s, claiming a two-year period of intermittent abuse when both boys were in their early teens. The complainant originally advised police that the abuse began when he was twelve years of age. But during examination-in-chief he suggested the abuse began much earlier. Following the complainant’s testimony, Mr. Whitfield raised a jurisdictional issue: that the accused, on the revised timeline, could not have been lawfully charged with a criminal offence under the governing youth legislation. The Crown withdrew the charge.
Client acquitted of one count of sexual assault following a three-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A previous charge of criminal harassment was withdrawn for lack of evidence. The complainant made historical allegations against her ex-boyfriend, including sexual intercourse at a family event where she was too intoxicated to consent. Mr. Whitfield was retained, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mr. Whitfield went directly to trial and presented material inconsistencies in the Complainant’s account of her level of intoxication, and between the versions of events she recounted to the police versus her testimony on the stand at trial. Mr. Whitfield also identified serious reliability concerns with the complainant’s evidence: she was unable to recall many details of the alleged sexual assault due to a patchwork memory and agreed it was possible she may have uttered words of encouragement during the periods she could not remember. The accused also testified. The trial judge found his evidence to be largely unchallenged, and, in the reasons for acquittal, cited serious shortcomings in the complainant’s credibility and reliability. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of sex assault.
Charges of Sex Assault and Voyeurism withdrawn prior to commencing trial, Newmarket. The complainant and Z.C. had a relationship for some two years. They broke up and about a year and half later when his entertainment career was blossoming and he entered a new relationship; the complainant went to the police and made historical sexual assault allegations. She also complained that he coercively controlled her and video recorded sexual interactions without her without her consent. Z.C. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. A cell phone extraction was completed with the client’s phone and we obtained a plethora of relevant messages undermining the complainant’s narrative and also giving rise to a motive to fabricate. During the process, the complainant began launching motions in the Ontario Court of Justice for updates on the prosecution and why Z.C.’s cell phone was not searched for a video or videos. The situation was that the police request for warrant to search the phone was denied and the phone was returned to the client. The complainant alleged in her motions that there was improper conduct on the part of the police, Crown and defence. The defence filed an extensive 276/278 Pre-Application to admit at trial on the sex assault charge other sexual history evidence and a large volume of messages that undermined the complainant’s narrative and demonstrated that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, the Crown withdrew the charges.
Six Counts of Sexual Assault against S.E. withdrawn by the Crown due to an unreasonable delay Charter application brought by Michael Bury before trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. S.E. was charged with several serious sexual assault allegations involving a former intimate partner. The Crown was seeking a custodial sentence and various ancillary orders including registration with the sex offender registry and DNA samples if S.E. were found guilty. The matter had a lengthy history of delay with a significant portion of delay attributable to the Crown as well as significant institutional delay. Michael Bury spent considerable time assessing the delay and conducting recent caselaw research to determine the prospects of making a successful stay application argument before the scheduled trial date. The Crown reviewed the stay application before trial and agreed that S.E.’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and withdrew the charges for this reason.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant and M.A. were married and lived together. During an argument between the couple, the Complainant claimed that she was trying to leave the apartment, however, M.A. closed the door to prevent her from leaving, grabbed her by her arm, and pushed her to the ground. She alleged that he stood over her and clawed at her face with his hands resulting in injuries to the complainant’s face and bruising to her leg as a result of the fall. The Complainant contacted the police and M.A. got arrested for assault as a result of the allegations. M.A. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. After reviewing disclosure and considerable negotiations with the crown, M.A.’s charges were withdrawn. A straight withdrawal was important for M.A. for employment reasons and thus, Yuvika Johri was able to secure that for him.
One count of Assault resolved by way of a peace bond prior to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Cornwall. The Complainant and S.C. were a newly married couple. The Complainant had recently immigrated to Canada. One evening, a 911 call was placed by the Complainant screaming that her husband is fighting with her. S.C. could be heard in the background shouting that he was not fighting with her. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant informed the police that there was an argument during which she took her cellphone and S.C.’s cellphone to call his brother. During the call, she alleged that S.C. tried to grab his cellphone from the Complainant. She further claimed that during the attempt to grab her phone, S.C. also grabbed the Complainant’s neck. During this altercation, the Complainant pushed S.C. causing him to fall. He then bit her left knee. During S.C’s interaction with the police, he explained that the Complainant held a knife against his through and threatened him, “I’m going to make you sorry and watch.” He alleged that the Complainant kicked him in the stomach and bit him. As a result of the information provided to the police, both the Complainant and S.C. got arrested for Assault. S.C retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure along with video recordings of the alleged altercation. It was obvious from the videos that the Complainant was the aggressive party in the altercation which also showed the Complainant assaulting S.C. After much back and forth with the crown and lengthy discussions at a Judicial Pre-Trial, Yuvika persuaded the crown to resolve S.C.’s charge by way of a common law peace bond after significant upfront therapy. This case unfortunately separated a newly married couple from living together for more than a year, and thus, a withdrawal was necessary for S.C’s case. The Complainant’s charges were eventually withdrawn in a similar manner.
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.
