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 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Charges of Domestic Assault X2 and Utter Threats were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown.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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn.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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown.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.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after five day trial. T.H. was a student in a University. T.H. and the complainant attended a friend’s house for a pre-drink prior to going to the bars. The house party went on for some hours and everyone played drinking games. Eventually T.H. and the complainant left the house and went back to his house. The two had intimate relations. The complainant woke up in T.H.’s house and did not remember the night. She spoke with T.H. who advised her that they had sex and about speaking about sex before being intimate. There were details about birth control and the complainant menstrating. The complainant left and over the course of a week spoke with friends and another female student who was at the house party. The conclusion was that she could not have consented and having been intoxicated she lacked the capacity to consent. The complainant sent a text to T.H. accusing him of sexual assault. T.H. replied and apologized and gave his version of the evening and sex. The complainant filed a complaint with the University and then the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his crininal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger put together a team from his office of John Navarrete and Diana Davison to work on the defence. At trial Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined all Crown witnesses to demonstrate their biased and wrongly held views on consent and capacity to consent and within that context their evidence was not reliable. There were many other areas of cross-examination after a successful 276 application about prior behavior of the complainant that undermined her evidence. For example the complainant alleged previous held attitudes about sex while menstruating; about sex for the first time with a man and her attitude of not being interested in T.H. that the Crown relied upon to demonstrate lack of consent. Cross-examination elicited evidence that directly contradicted these “attitudes” undermining the assertions of lack of consent. In relation to lack of capacity, Joseph Neuberger assailed the notion that an intoxicated party cannot consent. In fact an intoxicated consent is still consent. It may be that while intoxicated the complainant made choices that were not in her best interest and contrary to what she would normally do when sober but that in and of itself did not establish incapacity. Further, it became dangerously obvious that the “consent” education at the University was dramatically out of line with the law and infected the evidence with a skewed view of what actually took place the evening of the house party. Finally, underlying the evidence was an inherent bias about male sexual stereotypes that were improperly applied to the evidence including how it was used to frame T.H.’s text apology as a confession. After extensive written and oral submissions T.H. was found not guilty of sexual assault. To read the full text of the judgement
Charge of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn well prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. K.W. and his wife were having marital issues. An argument erupted regarding finances of the family and relationship issues. The complainant wanted K.W. to leave the home and live somewhere else. When he refused, a 911 call was made by the complainant and K.W. was charged with Assault and Mischief. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Shortly after the charges were laid, the complainant sent a letter to the Crown about the motive for calling the police. This was also send to Joseph Neuberger. In reviewing the statement and 911 call, it was apparent, as so often we see in these cases, more concern by the complainant about the relationship than issues about any type of domestic violence. A Zoom conference was set up with a judge and the assigned Crown. There were two children of the marriage and the parties wanted to reconcile. Joseph Neuberger arranged for joint marriage counselling and therapy on conflict management. After successful completion of the therapy, the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, and Threatening x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. M.F.S. was intoxicated one night with his former girlfriend. During an argument about him possibly having been unfaithful to her, she directed M.F.S. to contact via text and phone a former friend of hers to impersonate someone and intimidate and harass the complainant. This went on for several days during which the complainant contacted police and eventually M.F.S. was identified as the culprit and arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger had an investigator take a statement from M.F.S. former girlfriend, and indeed, she confessed to orchestrating the event and coercing M.F.S. while he was quite intoxicated. Joseph Neuberger sent the client for therapy as to his susceptibility to such an offence and alcohol counselling. During the therapy, the forensic psychologist interviewed the former girlfriend who again confirmed her involvement. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the therapy report and the interview of the girlfriend to the Crown assigned and it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn if M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond. Thus, all charges were withdrawn and M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. P.S. was married to the complainant for a short-term. It was an arranged marriage and upon immigrating to Canada multiple arguments arose regarding the relationship and finances of the marriage. On the date of separation, the complainant contacted police and alleged a historic sexual assault from earlier in the marriage. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence lawyers. Upon receiving the disclosure, the statement of the complainant demonstrated more concern over insignificant issues in the marriage than the sexual assault. During the criminal process, the complainant retained a family lawyer, and in the correspondence a demand for a lump sum was sought along with reference to the criminal charges. The client was referred to a family lawyer, and a defence on both fronts was marshalled. After some defence disclosure of information received through the family court process, extensive pre-trials took place and ultimately it was determined that the charge ought to be withdrawn in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond. As such, the charge 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.
