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
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 Assault x 3, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic) all withdrawn at first court appearance. W.W. was confronted by his girlfriend about an alleged affair (she misread a text message) and the girlfriend/complainant severely assaulted W.W. W.W. called 911. W.W. went to hospital with a gash to his left eyebrow, multiple abrasions and a possible concussion. W.W. gave a brief statement to police at the hospital but the complainant gave a video recorded statement at the police station at the same time. When released from the hospital, W.W. was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the medical records and pictures of the injuries of W.W. Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed disclosure letter not only seeking disclosure but a detailed response to how a decision was made to charge his client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also provided the medical records and pictures in support and suggested in the letter that not only was his client wrongfully accused, but there was an obvious gender bias that can result in a lawsuit. On the first appearance the Crown withdrew all charges.
Client found not guilty after trial on a single count of breaching a section 161 order. H.T. had plead guilty in 2015 to offences related to sexual interference and sexual assault. A section 161 order was made for a term of five years. One prohibition was to not apply for work related to anyone under the age of 16. H.T. had applied for a job to tutor, but had thought it was just for editing of papers of University Students. The person offering the position, went to police alleging that H.T. had applied for a tutor position that could involve students ages 8 and up. Joseph Neuberger as retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the case. Joseph Neuberger sourced out the website of the tutoring company, the job description and retrieved from the client all email exchanges. Aside from disclosure that was provided, it became apparent that the complainant and her business marketed to university students, and in fact the position was not posted on the website and the complainant could not recall if at any time any mention was made of students other than students in University. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and another employee of the tutoring business and it was established that the complainant was not forthright about what position was offered, and in fact misrepresented what the position was that H.T. had applied for. There was no mention nor evidence that H.T. applied to tutor anyone other than university level students. Without going into other detail, cross-examination revealed that the complainant simply took it upon herself to allege something that in fact was not an accurate reflection of the job or H.T.’s application. H.T. was found not guilty at trial as H.T. had obeyed the strict terms of the 161 order and not breached the order.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after successful negotiations at the Judicial pre-trial stage, Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. An argument between a husband and wife culminated in the husband allegedly hitting the wife on her head in front of their children. The altercation was reported by the father of the wife with the wife providing a statement. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained to represent O.I. on the assault charge. Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and found numerous issues in the wife’s statement. After three extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko conducted a Judicial pre-trial at which time it was agreed that the prospect of conviction was low and the client entered into into a peace bond and the charge was formally withdrawn.
Directed verdict of not guilty granted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Sexual Interference x 2. The client had been married to his wife, Y.W, for over 9 years and there was a daughter, who was the complainant in this case. In August of 2018 the complainant came forward with allegations that in 2015 Y.Z. had touched her breast and then for the balance of 2015 and 2016 had committed various acts of touching in her bedroom. These allegations came forward right at the time that Y.Z. and his wife were having extensive arguments about his son from a previous marriage coming to Canada to live with them. These arguments were so disruptive that the Y.Z and his wife longer shared a bedroom and agreed to separate in August of 2018. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements, and obtained from the client a detailed history and chronology of all events from their marriage up his date of charge. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents, and messages between Y.Z. and his wife. While the case was ongoing, new disclosure was provided of a partial recording made by the wife in August of 2018 where she questioned him about the alleged sexual assault. The recording was less than one minute and cut off at the end. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant about the allegations and established inconsistencies and implausible facts. However, Joseph Neuberger had court break early and so the mother, Mr. Y.Z. would testify the next day. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger suspected that the complainant and her mother would speak over night prior to the mother/wife testifying. The next day the mother testified and Joseph Neuberger vigorously cross-examined her, showing first that it was obvious that the complainant and her mother had spoken about the cross-examination thus showing collusion, and second, the recording was obviously cut off. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the recording and the complainant insisted it was a confession by Y.Z. and that he had not denied the allegations. However, under cross-examination she admitted that what she had turned over to the police was only a small part of a nine (9) minute recording. Thus, court was adjourned as a police officer attended at the mother’s residence and retrieved a copy of the full and complete recording. After careful review with the Crown, it was apparent that the mother, Y.W., had lied to the court and the police about the nature of the recording and in fact a full transcript of the recording showed that Y.Z. had indeed denied the allegations and the mother only gave what portion she wanted to provide to the police to try and convince them that he had admitted the offence. Thus, the Crown assessed the case and based on the evidence arising from cross-examination invited the Court to enter not guilty verdicts on all charges.
Charge of Assault withdraw prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. J.S. was charged after an argument with an owner of a competing restaurant in a mall. J.S. was alleged to have struck the complainant several times. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. There was no video surveillance from the mall and the disclosure on the case was very slim. There were no injuries to the complainant. Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to take some statements from employees of other restaurants who may have witnessed the incident. The statements disclosed that in fact the complainant instigated the event. These statements were turned over to the Crown. After several discussions, it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn and J.S. would sign a common law peace bond. As such, the charge of Assault was formally withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after negotiations with the Crown. The client was charged with having assaulted her boyfriend during a heated argument about their relationship. The boyfriend did sustain injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. He sent the client to therapy with an expert in domestic violence and asked the client to complete community service. A report was provided to the Crown along with the letter of community service. After two pre-trials with the Crown, an agreement was reached to withdraw the charge and the client would sign a common law peace bond. Accordingly, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.
Client acquitted after an eight day jury trial in Toronto, Superior Court, of charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Weapons Dangerous, Use Imitation Firearm, Assault Causing Bodily Harm. The client was in a one year relationship and in November of 2016 he moved in with his girlfriend, one of the complainants. K.W. left for China in December to visit family and while away complainant number one sent text messages breaking up with him and telling him that she has packed all of his belongings and place them in his car. This happened to have included a bb gun. When K.W. arrived home he had discovered that she had removed $6,000.00 from his account. K.W. went to confront his girlfriend and she did not want to speak. He left but then returned about half an hour later after she contacted him about their cat. He returned and was confronted by her new boyfriend. A fight broke out and police were eventually called and the client was charged with several offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. K.W. was initially charged with use firearm, however, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired an expert, and established that the projectile speed was less than that found by the police expert and the charge was down graded to imitation firearm. Further, a defence investigator was hired to take additional statements. Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a preliminary hearing and cross-examined the two complainants in a manner toward developing the defence. It was very help and then in preparation for trial spend considerable time preparing the client to testify and drafting the cross-examinations of all of the Crown witnesses. After two days of deliberations, the jury found K.W. not guilty on all charges, including Domestic Assault, Assault with Weapon, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Use Imitation Firearm and Weapons Dangerous.
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.
