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
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.R. was married to the complainant for over two decades. The marriage was coming to an end, and after a heated argument about selling the matrimonial house, the complainant contacted police when M.R. was at work. The complainant alleged an assault. M.R. was arrested, ordered to stay away from the matrimonial house and had no way of obtaining his belongings. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the family court documents, it became readily apparent the charge was used to gain leverage in the family court proceedings. Divorce proceedings had started prior to the charge. After the charge, the court pleadings were amended and the complainant alleged a history of abuse and then charge. Sadly, one of the children of the marriage had to be interviewed to determine what happened on the day of the alleged assault. The evidence did not corroborate the complainant’s version. After extensive discussions, prior to trial, an agreement was reached for M.R. to sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. The was agreed upon with no admission of any liability but was done to prevent one of the children having to testify at the trial. As such, the charge of assault was withdrawn.
The client was charged with Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. The client and the complainant have been married for many years and had two children in common. The tension between the client and the complainant started when the client’s mother has moved in with them. The complainant alleged that on one of the occasions, the client and her were arguing about the client’s mother and the client has slapped the complainant on her face. It was alleged that the client proceeded to close the complainant’s mouth and nose with his palm, choking her. The Crown took the allegations very seriously as choking was involved. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as a defence counsel. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who was hesitant to withdraw the charge, however, agreed to a lengthy adjournment for the client to attend counseling. The client completed very substantial amount of private counseling. In addition, the complainant provided a letter that she didn’t fear the client and wished for them to resume their relationship. After careful negotiations with the prosecutor, Mariya convinced him to withdraw the charge. The charge against the client was withdrawn.
The client was charged with two counts of Domestic Assault. The client and the complainant were a married couple with a young child. The complainant alleged that a number of years ago the client had pushed the complainant while she was pregnant. In addition, the complainant alleged that the client has hit her in the stomach while they were arguing and the complainant fell as a result of the hit. The complainant ran from the apartment unit to the security desk, laid down on the floor crying and asking the security officer to call 911. The security office called police who attended, spoke to the complainant and arrested the client. The client retained Mariya Protsenko, of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The complainant retained her own counsel and advised Mariya that she wanted to reconcile with the client, however, she was unwilling to retract her allegations. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who offered the client to complete an anger management course, PARS. The client has refused to do that and was willing to do couple’s counseling instead. The Crown agreed to vary the client’s bail order to allow him to partake in the couple’s counseling with the complainant. Upon the completion of the couple’s counseling, Mariya spoke to the prosecutor again which resulted in withdrawal of charges.
The client was a respondent in a peace bond matter. The Applicant was the client’s son in law and there has been a long history of animosity between the two of them. The client’s daughter was going through a high conflict divorce with the Applicant as well as the Children Aid Society was involved. The Applicant audio recorded the client allegedly threatening him during agreed children drop off/pick up. The client retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The case involved numerous police occurrence reports, CAS’s reports, text and email correspondence. Once the hearing was scheduled, Mariya tirelessly prepared the client to testify as well as to be cross examined. Mariya also prepared the client’s daughter if additional witness was required. Mariya carefully crafted a cross examination for the Applicant and drafted submissions. During a hearing, Mariya successfully cross-examined the Applicant, re-cited case law and made submissions why the peace bond should not be issued against the client. The Justice of the Peace agreed with Mariya’s submissions and declined to issue a peace bond against her client. The peace bond Application was dismissed.
The client was charged with Domestic Assault. During the course of a dispute with his wife, the police were called and an allegation was made about physical contact. P.J. was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure was received, and after detailed review and numerous pre-trials with the Crown, it was negotiated that the client would undertake a course of therapy and eventual joint marriage counselling. If the therapy was successful, the charge would be withdrawn with a peace bond. The therapy completed and was successful. The COVID-19 issue arose and the courts were having issues processing cases for people not in custody. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, entered into discussions with the assigned crown and after much back and forth it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn with no peace bond. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Harassing Calls, Utter Death threats x 3, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. Z.Z. and his wife were having marriage difficulties. After a heated argument, apparently the complainant wife contacted police and charges were laid related to her and the two children. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After an extensive interview with the client, it was discovered that the complainant had been having an affair for over two years and Z.Z. was very distraught and had been coerced into remaining in the marriage or he would not see his children again. On the date of the allegations, the complainant and Z.Z. were to meet over dinner and discuss their marriage. The complainant did not show up, and heated text messages were allegedly exchanged. Z.Z. took the two children to a movie. When he got home police were at the house and he was arrested, and put on conditions to have not contact with his family. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of various text messages that established the affair, and the threats to keep Z.Z. in the marriage. A request for a forensic review of the complainant’s cell phone to substantiate her allegations was not satisfied. The defence disclosed messages consisted with the defence position and after extensive discussions, the case was resolved for all charges being withdrawn, and Z.Z. signing a peace bond.
H.C. found not guilty after three-day judge alone trial, Toronto of Robbery with a Firearm. Someone had posted a fake escort advertisement and when the complainant showed up for his ‘date’, he was met by two masked robbers who pointed firearms at him and robbed him. The complainant could not provide clear identification of the robbers. All the police had to go on was the cellphone number that was used in the advertisement. A couple of weeks later, the police received a call from an anonymous tipster describing having been robbed in the same manner as the complainant with the robbers using the same fake advertisement for the escort and the same phone number. The tipster indicated that he had been instructed by the robbers to attend a particular address. The police went to the area and located H.C. and his co-accused sitting in a vehicle. The police arrested them. They located two firearms and the cellphone with the phone number used in the fake advertisements. The police acquired the phone records for the cellphone. Though it was registered to a fake name, the phone was used to make several calls to family members of H.C. Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. In discussions with the Crown, the Crown felt it was a “slam dunk” against H.C. but that they did not have sufficient evidence against H.C.’s co-accused and eventually withdrew against him prior to trial. The Crown was very confident and did not understand why H.C. was not pleading guilty. After all, the phone that was used to set up the robberies made repeated calls to H.C.’s family in the month of the robberies, H.C. was found in a vehicle with the cellphone in question, with H.C. and two firearms. In the Crown’s opinion, this was slam dunk. However, under careful scrutiny, the evidence melted away. The Crown was unable to call the evidence that the cellphone was used on the night H.C. was arrested to set up an identical robbery to the one he was on trial for. The reason was that the anonymous tipster’s statements to the police was hearsay and thus inadmissible. The relevance of the two firearms found in the car on night of the arrest was not relevant to proving the identity of the robbers. The firearms used on the night of the robbery were described differently than those located in the car on the night of the arrest. The Crown failed to appreciate that the co-accused – the one whom the Crown ultimately withdrew against – was H.C.’s cousin. The defence was able to establish that it was common for H.C.’s cousin to contact his extended family members by phone. How then could we be sure that the phone belonged to H.C. and not his former co-accused? Both equally had access to the phone that was linked to the robbery. In the end, the judge found H.C. not guilty of all charges.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Obtaining Services for Consideration of Person under 18, Make and Possess Child Pornography all withdrawn at start of trial. The client was on a website known as Secret Benefits and had contacted someone advertising as a 19 year old. One thing led to another and a few days after being at D.T.’s residence police attended for an unrelated issue and it was discovered that the complaintant was under 18. At all times the complainant represented herself as at least 18 years of age. However D.T. was charged with various offences arising from his activities with the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The crown operated on the basis that D.T. had to take “all reasonable steps” to verify the age of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the messaging and posts relevant to establish that the complaintant represented herself and answered questions consistent with being 18 and 19. The case law does not establish that requesting and checking the person’s identification is necessary. D.T. did take reasonable steps and as such all charges withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn after extensive preliminary hearing. P.G. was in early stages of dating the complainant and the two had sexual interaction. After P.G. failed to contact the complainant, the complaintant concluded, in her mind, that she was sexually assaulted during two dates with P.G. and went to the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer and the firm’s senior paralegal Grace Condello assisted with the defence. Diligent defence work resulted in obtaining through disclosure and data recovery of the complainant’s phone text messages including critical evidence of messages between the complainant and her friend about P.G. “Ghosting” the complainant and how upset she was. Also the complainant with the assistance of her friend set up fake Facebook book accounts and posted remarks regarding the complaintant and threatened him via Facebook messaging. The complainant after all of the messaging then had gone to police and laid the charges. Thus, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger uncovered solid evidence that the allegations were made as a result of the complainant feeling jilted by P.G. During cross examination at the preliminary hearing the complainant was challenged on all of the defence evidence and it then became obvious that the complaintant was not credible nor reliable about the allegations. As a result the charges were withdrawn.
Note: Sadly the federal government’s new legislation amending the Criminal Code under Bill C 51 and Bill C 75 will now make this type of defence much more difficult. The new amendments eliminate preliminary hearings for sexual assault cases. Also because of Bill C 51 lawyers will have to disclose and argue at a hearing the relevance of all the messages and Facebook messaging that was so important in this case. Thus from now on the complainant will get full disclosure from the defence well prior to trial of such evidence and can argue it is not relevant and ought to be excluded. As well there are no more preliminary hearings . Such changes are a shameful attack on due process and the ability of anyone accused, male or female, to make full answer and defence. In this case, solid defence work uncovered clear evidence of motive to fabricate and in the future the ability to defend has become a greater challenge. That is why experience is necessary to defend sexual assault charges.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under withdrawn on day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client and the complainant had been married for nine years. The couple had been arguing for years about various issues including finances. In October of 2018 the couple had an argument after the complainant made a comment about M.C. being fat. The complainant alleged that she was assaulted and later that day called police. The client was charged with offences also dating back a few months and then in 2016. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. About a month after, the complainant brough an Application in family court for divorce but also sought sole custody. M.C. was limited to what time he could spend with the two children. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court material, the disclosure and additional material from the client about exchanges that suggested there was a rift in the marriage for some time as the complainant had been very aggressive about what M.C. should be doing for her financially and that the complainant had been sending money to her family via a separate account without M.C,.’s knowledge. Extensive time was spent with M.C. preparing him for trial and developing cross examination. Certain material was disclosed by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger to the Crown suggesting that the allegations were motivated by gaining leverage in a family court proceeding to not only have sole custody but also substantial child support. At trial, the Crown considered all of the evidence and agreed to withdraw all charges if the client signed a common law peace bond. The result was in the best interests of bringing down conflict so both the complainant and M.C. could bring their family law matter to a close and for the client to obtain shared custody. As such, M.C. signed a common law peace bond and the charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under 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.
