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
Charges of Utter Death Threats withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Unfortunately Y.Y. is intellectually disabled and during a frustrating period in his life at a special school, Y.Y. uttered threats to several students in the same program. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the most recent cognitive assessment and send Y.Y. for further assessment and conflict management therapy. Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown the cognitive assessments, and the therapy report. There were some elements of Y.Y. feeling bullied and Y.Y. was not coping well and not skilled enough to seek help. But after therapy had developed very good coping skills. The Crown agreed and withdrew the charges.
Client was charged with Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property. This case involved an allegation of the client assaulting his spouse at a hotel where an alleged affair was to take place. The client retained John Navarrete. After requesting the hotel video surveillance, and having the client complete counselling, Mr. Navarrete was able to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case and the real possibility for the defence to argue of self-defence. All charges against the client were withdrawn and the client entered into a peace bond at the courthouse in Brampton.
Client was charged with Assault, and Assault with Weapon for an alleged fight using a bat involving various individuals in a grocery parking lot. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent her on this serious charge. After hiring a private investigator and putting together various documents and videos from social media, Mr. Navarrete provided all materials for the Crown’s consideration and convince the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to withdraw the criminal charge against the client.
Client charged with Assault, Resist Arrest and Theft Under $5,000. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and the surveillance of the grocery store which depicted a different picture than was contained in the criminal allegation. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-trial with the Crown Attorney’s office at 1000 Finch Ave West and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all the criminal charges.
Client was charged with Assault (X4) involving various incidents of alleged domestic assault against his spouse. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on these charges. Mr. Navarrete put together various documents including the civil action in India, video recordings, emails and text messages to establish that the spouse was possibly extorting the client for money. As a result, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges against the client at the courthouse at 1000 Finch Ave West, Toronto.
Charges of Domestic Assault X2 and Utter Threats were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. AD was in a relationship with the Complainant for almost two years. The Complainant alleged that AD assaulted her on two different occasions and threatened to kill her. John Navarrete and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to represent AD against the charges. After much back and forth with the Crown, John and Yuvika were able to show that the Complainant’s allegations were false. The Crown reviewed all materials disclosed by the defence, including e-mails and messages sent by Complainant trying to extort AD. Crown withdrew all charges as prospect of conviction was low.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn. BC and the Complainant were international students who had been dating for almost a year and a half. While playing a card game, an argument ensued, and Complainant alleged that BC shoved her against a window by grabbing her collar. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri were retained as criminal defence lawyers for BC. Mariya and Yuvika reviewed disclosure diligently and conducted several pre-trials with the Crown. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw charges on successful completion of counselling and allowing BC to sign a peace bond.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown. The Complainant and AS were heavy alcohol drinkers. An argument erupted between them both one day and the Complainant was spotted at a traffic signal intoxicated. Police was notified and upon meeting her, Complainant alleged that AS grabbed her wrist and prevented her from leaving their residence. When police met AS, they observed that although AS was intoxicated as well, the Complainant left scratches and bruises on AS. She had no injuries on her. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri from Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained by AS. After extensive review of disclosure and negotiations with Crown, Crown agreed to withdraw charges against AS after successful competition of alcohol counselling.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Domestic Assault x 2, and Mischief, withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Y.S.Y, and the complainant were dating while attending U of T. At some point the relationship deteriorated and the two ended their relationship. When Y.S.Y. started dating another lady, Y.S.Y. had a number of encounters with Y.S.Y. during which she was highly aggressive. After the final encounter, Y.S.Y. complained to university security of sexual assault and assault allegations. The police were called and Y.S.Y. was charged. The university commenced an internal investigation into the allegations and if found to be true on a balance of probabilities, Y.S.Y. would have been expelled. Joseph Neuberger, and Mariya Protsenko were retained as Y.S.Y.’ s criminal defence lawyers. Immediately after reviewing the statement of the complainant, and extensive interview with the client, Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview six witnesses to the alleged assaults. Each statement was supportive of the defence position. In fact, the complainant’s own statement to police notes that the complainant went up to Y.S.Y. and struck him first and Y.S.Y. protected himself. However, for some reason the police still charged with a count of assault. All defence witness statements were provided to the Crown. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, represented Mr. Y.S.Y., in the university investigation. The client was interviewed in the presence of Joseph Neuberger, all defence interviews were turned over to the university investigator and the defence had opportunity to put evidence before the university investigation including a defence analysis of the evidence of the complainant. Eventually, the university investigation concluded that the complainant lacked credibility even on a balance of probabilities and noted that she had admitted to assaulting Mr. Y.S.Y. As such, Y.S.Y. succeeded in the university investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger then filed extensive writing materials with the Crown to address the lack of any reasonable prospect of conviction in the criminal case. In addition, a further judicial pre-trial was conducted and based upon principled discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges. ** It is important as a take-away from this case that for those students charged with domestic or sexual allegations with a fellow student and a university investigation is commenced, it is vital to be able to have proper legal advise and representation as the process is not the same as the criminal process and can also have life altering consequences if not properly handled.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.H. and the complainant had known each other for approximately five years. They remained in contact but never dated. An arrangement was made for the complainant to attend A.H.’s apartment to have drinks and catch up. The complainant was supposed to attend earlier in the evening but arrived around 1:00 a.m. with a backpack and her purse. The two drank and had a pleasant evening. A.H. showed pictures of his two sons who were living with him full time. At some point the complainant alleged that A.H. left the apartment to obtain GHB and returned and forced her to drink the GHB. In addition, the complainant alleged that she got sick, vomited and then A.H. tried to force himself on the complainant. The complainant refused to leave the apartment after A.H. had asked her to leave and then alleged that she could call police. A.H. video recorded some of their interaction and eventually the complainant left, called police and A.H. was charged with Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages exchanged between the parties prior to and just after the complainant left the apartment. After leaving the complainant wrote in a text that she hopes his kids get kicked to the curb just like she was. Joseph Neuberger brought a motion under section 278 to admit the messages as evidence and the video recording. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of material inconsistencies between her two statements to police. In addition, detailed cross-examination was undertaken on what was captured on video and the text messaging. It appeared that the complainant had attended A.H.’s apartment to party and stay over. Joseph Neuberger prepared A.H. to testify. At trial A.H. testified that in fact the complainant had procured the GHB and drank it herself while using a bottle cap to dose out the GHB and not “G-out”. A.H. testified that all sexual contact was consensual but after he asked the complainant to leave and not stay over because he did not want his two boys waking up and meeting her, an argument broke out during which the complainant stated that she could just “call police and say he forced himself on her”. In fact, during cross-examination of the complainant on the video, right after A.H. requested the complainant to leave, the complainant said “ok then I will call the police.” The defence called other contradictory evidence to support the position that the complainant was not telling the truth about the evening. After extensive submissions, A.H. was found not guilty of both charges.
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.
