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 after five (5) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a school. He was very close with a number of other teachers at the school. On the eve of March break the teachers got together for an end of term social event. At the end of the night four people attended back at the complainant’s home for food, and more drinking. At some point later in the evening, K.Q. and the complainant were in the complainant’s bed. The two were intoxicated. The two had sexual relations. Within about a week, the complainant alleged a sexual assault to the school where they worked, and then went to police and a charge of sexual assault was laid. Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. Diana Davison joined the defence team as a specialist in false accusations and legal research. The disclosure was carefully reviewed, and a trial strategy was put in place. Careful attention was paid to cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, and developing the client to be ready for testifying at trial. In addition, much of the prosecution’s case revolved around capacity and male sexual stereotypes. The defence, assailed the evidence on the basis that the complainant was not too intoxicated to consent and the stereotypes are unfair to a male accused. In addition, there were text messages between the complainant and K.Q. prior to and after the alleged sexual assault. The defence was able to establish that the complainant had a prior interest in K.Q. that undermined her evidence at trial, and that the post messages from K.Q., although apologetic, were nevertheless simply acknowledgement of the feelings of the complainant but NOT a confession of doing something criminal. The evidence was complex, but after reliance upon relevant case law and focused submissions on key areas of reliability, the defence was able to establish that the crown could not prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court agreed that the complainant did not lack capacity and had reliability issues that compromised the Crown’s case. The complainant through cross-examination conceded that her memory was essentially unreliable due to “flashback” type memories and reconstructing her memory piece by piece over a week. The trial judge came to the conclusion that K.Q. was not guilty.
Client found not criminally responsible on charges of assault, mischief, assault with a weapon, dangerous driving x 3, assault peace officer, and criminal harassment. D.A. after being discharged from a short stay in hospital for a mental health issue, unfortunately had a number of encounters with past friends that resulted in damage and criminal charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, and the past medical records, it was apparent that D.A. was suffering from a major mental illness that was operative at the time of the offending conduct. Two defence forensic experts were retained. After extensive pre-trial discussions and trial was conducted and the defence established that D.A. was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.
Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threatening, and Assault with Weapon, withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. M.M. was in his car with the complainant, his girlfriend, and an argument ensued about M.M. wanting to end the relationship. The argument got so bad that M.M. stopped his car at an intersection and asked her to leave his car. She refused and grabbed his arm. He then pushed her and opened the door. During the struggle, the complainant called 911 and then eventually exited the car. M.M. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full 911 call had it transcribed and then conducted a pre-trial with the Crown. The 911 call seemed quite clear that M.M. had stopped the car, and asked the complainant to leave who refused. The complainant then is heard swearing at M.M. and threatening him. The struggle can be heard but there were no injuries and M.M. is heard as saying to the complainant to stop hitting him. Joseph Neuberger agreed to a common law peace bond and all charges were withdrawn. * It was unfortunate that the 911 call was not more carefully reviewed.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Threatening and Assault causing Bodily Harm, withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Brampton. V.D. and his wife were have ongoing arguments about financial issues. During an argument, V.D. was doing his work in the office of their home. The complainant knocked away his computer and the two struggled over the computer. The complainant called police and alleged a very serious assault including punching to the head. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. The disclosure was obtained and the police notes did not have any observation of injury. The office of the home was noted to be in disarray consistent with V.D.’s version of events. The statement of the complainant was not consistent and in fact had internal inconsistencies. Numerous pre-trials were conducted and V.D. undertook private therapy. The bail was amended and the couple entered into joint therapy to address their marital issues. V.D. signed a peace bond for 6 months and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property all withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto. The complainant had been living with W.E. for about 8 months. The complainant had a alcohol abuse issue. On the night of the charges W.E. was concerned about the level of intoxication of the complainant and had asked her to leave his apartment. The complainant left but returned a few hours later. All of her clothes were packed and outside the apartment. The complainant entered the apartment and an argument ensued that became physical. W.E. called 911 and when police arrived and interviewed both parties, W.E. got charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer. The complainant’s statement was literally nonsensical and the police notes disclose that the complainant was highly intoxicated. W.E. had injuries in the form of fresh scratches. During pre-trials the Crown had to be reminded that W.E. was on the lease and his girlfriend was a guest and not a tenant. He had full right to ask her to leave and to defend himself. The chares were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. D.G. is a foreign trained physician. In Canada he was writing his equivalency exams and working at a clinic. One of the patients during a meeting for a medical note for her school alleged that D.G. hugged her, and slide his hand up her leg and groped her buttocks. The client was charged with Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure, including a very limited interview of the Vice Principal of the school where the complainant had been attending. The complainant attended the client’s clinic and had reoccurring throat infections. But on this date the complainant wanted a note just to give her school in case they needed a medical letter about her absences. Joseph Neuberger had the VP interviewed in a more thorough manner, and it was apparent that the complainant was missing a lot of school days and was in jeopardy of not being able to continue in the program. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of important facts that she was unclear about and specifically about her evidence and her mother’s evidence that no medical note was necessary. Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed the Vice Principal and established that in fact a meeting took place three days before D.G. was charged wherein the VP made it clear that if the complainant was going to miss more dates it was vital for her to get a medical record. In addition, it seems the complainant did not want to attend school due to issues with peers. She was to be changing schools after the first semester. The theory of the defence was that D.G. was asked for a medical note about future dates to be missed, which was not possible. The complainant wanted a favour as she was not sick when she went to see D.G. and needed the note to excuse her for the rest of the semester. When a note was finally drafted, the complainant believed that the note would help her. When she read it, the note did not help her and she needed another excuse to be absent from school such as a sexual assault allegation. D.G. was prepared for testimony and gave evidence at trial. The trial judge found reliability issues arising from cross-examination of the complainant’s evidence particularly around the purpose of the visit but other significant details. The trial judge also accepted the evidence of D.G. In the end, D.G. was found not guilty of Sexual Assault.
Six (6) charges of sexual assault alleged by the former girlfriend of client withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Collingwood. A.A.J. was in a relationship that was turbulent. The client had concerns about advancing the relationship and arguments were frequent about marriage. The client ended the relationship and asked for no more contact. The next A.A.J. was charged with six counts of Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was hired at the criminal defence lawyer. Two detailed judicial pre-trial were held and Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction based on email and text communications from the complainant leading up to the day before the client was charged. Under the new 278 section of the Criminal Code, these messages would need to be vetted in a motion. Joseph Neuberger decided to draft the motion, with a detailed memo on how the messages undermine the statement of the complainant and provide all of the material to the Crown for review. The Crown determined that not only was there no reasonable prospect of conviction, the messages indicated that the complainant was stalking the client and was angry that he ended the relationship and charged him in revenge. A very clear case of false accusations. The Crown was excellent and open minded in the review. All charges withdrawn.
Charges of Assault x 2, and Utter Death Threats withdrawn just prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. O.H. and the complainant had been married for 14 years. The two had separated a few times and during the time of the allegations were separated and living in the same home. There was an argument about O.H. having cheated in the past, and about him not being suitable to have shared custody of their children. O.H. left the house to take a break from the argument and when he arrived back home, police were waiting and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages from O.H. between O.H. and his wife, photographs of his own injuries and worked with the family lawyer. The family law documents were very helpful as the complainant set out different facts regarding the assault but clearly stated that she was seeking sole custody and exclusive possession of the house. Joseph Neuberger continued discussions with the Crown including disclosing the family court material and some recordings of arguments. Eventually the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and agreed to withdraw the charges.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after months of discussions with the assigned crown attorney, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. H.J. was in a short relationship with the complainant. At a point when the couple were arguing about where the relationship was leading and a sense from the complainant that H.J. had cheated on her, H.J. ended the relationship. A few days later another argument erupted via text about returning property to H.J. At that point the complainant made allegations of sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained all electronic communications before and after the break up of the relationship. The couple had in fact messaged a considerable amount each day and argued over messaging. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a statement taken from friend of the couple who was present for a significant argument. The messages, statement and a detailed memo was produced by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous pre-trials it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Threatening, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. S.G. and the complainant were separated but living under the same roof – still in the matrimonial home. An argument occurred between S.G. and his wife about who should leave the house. A day later S.G. was charged. He was arrested, placed on bail that prevented him from attending at the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Application for Divorce filed by the complainant which included the allegations and sought exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. The core of the argument for sole custody of the assault allegations. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials, disclosed the family court material and negotiated a peace bond resolution. Thus, 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.
