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 of one count of Sexual Assault after a trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The Complainant alleged that she had invited some friends over to her residence. She claimed to have been severely intoxicated and not remember anything from the night. She was found unconscious by her family members the next morning, naked, and with a used condom next to her. The house was robbed and several electronic items were missing in the apartment. Pursuant to a DNA warrant, A.M.’s DNA was found on the condom and within the vaginal canal of the complainant. A.M. was one of the attendees at the party. As a result, A.M. was charged with sexual assault. A.M retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charge. Yuvika Johri prepared a detailed application pursuant to s.276/278 of the criminal code. It was the defence’s position that the Complainant initiated sexual interaction with A.M. after she had already been having sexual intercourse with another individual in her room. When she did not finish, she initiated sexual intercourse with A.M. Several family members of the Complainant also testified about their observation of the complainant the next morning. The crown also called a DNA expert who was extensively cross examined by the defence. Yuvika Johri was able to establish a motive to fabricate as the Complainant was not allowed to have any parties at home and there were several rules to follow which she had broken on the night of the alleged offence. Just one year prior to the alleged offence, the Complainant’s father had been arrested for an incident in relation to the Complainant using Xanax as a result of which, she was placed under strict house rules. These rules were violated on the night of the alleged offence. The Complainant’s vape and jacket were also found in areas of the house where she claimed to not have been. A.M. testified on his behalf. After a 7-day trial, A.M was found not guilty of this charge as it was determined that the crown could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Complainant had a motive to lie.
R. v. J. L (2025)
One count of Sexual Assault resolved by way of a peace bond mid-trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located in Toronto. The Complainant alleged that in the early months of 2022, she met J.L. at a party and started to date on and off. Sometime around February 2022, the two became serious about their relationship and moved into a Bachelorette. During their relationship, J.L. was going through a divorce. One night in May 2023, the Complainant alleged that she was laying in bed facing away from the accused. She was trying to sleep dressed in her t-shirt and underwear. The Complainant alleged that J.L. was laying naked next to her when he began to cuddle her, grabbed her left arm, and put her on her back. She claimed that J.L mounted on top of her, removed her underwear, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. The Complainant claimed that J.L forced vaginal intercourse until he ejaculated inside her. After the ejaculation, the complainant went off to sleep and so did J.L. J.L retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him against the charge. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and noted several issues with the crown’s case. A detailed application under s. 276 of the criminal code was prepared which was successfully granted. On the day of the trial, the Complainant arrived late and decided to provide a further statement to the officer in charge in relation to new offences against the accused. She also provided an audio recording of an argument that took place days before the alleged sexual assault. As a result, the trial was adjourned due to last minute disclosure. After much back and forth with the crown in lieu of the last-minute disclosure and new statement which raised grave concerns about the complainant’s credibility, Yuvika convinced the crown to resolve the case by way of a peace bond.
Three counts of sexual assault withdrawn by way of a peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant was a female friend of M.C. who was also a female. M.C. and the Complainant were a part of the same social circle. M.C. was involved in the complainant’s company as an investor. The agreement between the Complainant and M.C. was to split profits 70/30 percent for a couple of years. However, this working relationship went sour when the Complainant failed to provide M.C. with the agreed upon profit. The Complainant did not appreciate M.C.’s repeated demands for the agreed upon split and thus, laid charges for sexual assault. The Complainant alleged that sometime between March 2023, M.C. attended her spa with alcohol after working hours. When the Complainant was falling asleep, she alleged that M.C. climbed on top of her and began kissing her. The Complainant tried to push her off but M.C. grabbed her breasts and vagina. She held the Complainant’s hands and placed it on her own breasts all while the Complainant protested and repeatedly said no. The Complainant also alleged that M.C. used a sex toy to penetrate her vagina on this occasion against her will. On another occasion, the Complainant alleged that she had gone clubbing with M.C. and their common friends. One of her common friends became very intoxicated so she decided to drop her home with M.C. While leaving the common friend’s home, she alleged that M.C. grabbed the Complainant, groped her, and started fondling her breasts while kissing her against her will. On the third occasion, the Complainant alleged that M.C showed up at her residence unannounced to watch a movie. While watching the movie, she alleged that M.C. suddenly reached over and grabbed the Complainant by the face to kiss her. The Complainant said no and pulled away but M.C. continued doing so. At one point, she started touching and fondling the Complainant’s breasts. The Complainant asked M.C. to leave as she was not comfortable. The Complainant told the police that she was not in a relationship with M.C. and never had been prior to these incidences. M.C. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend her on the charges. Yuvika prepared a comprehensive application under s.276/278 of the criminal code. Yuvika provided text messages between the Complainant and M.C. which showed that they were “friends with benefits” prior to the time frame when the Complainant alleged sexual assault. Yuvika also provided paperwork from small claims court which showed that M.C. had initiated a claim against the Complainant prior to the allegations. Yuvika was able to show that the charges were laid as a means to prevent M.C. from pursuing small claims action against the Complainant. After much back and forth with the crown, Yuvika was able to convince the crown to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond. All charges were withdrawn against M.C.
One charge of assault withdrawn, no peace bond, following a pretrial call between Mr. Whitfield and the assigned Crown. The client, who was new to Canada and who knew only basic English, had been charged following an argument with his partner. The partner had opposed the arrest. During discussions with Mr. Whitfield, the Crown acknowledged the accused’s vulnerability and accepted Mr. Whitfield position the accused was clearly not an aggressor. The charges were withdrawn following brief upfront counselling.
D.A. acquitted of one count of Sexual Assault and one count of Assault following a three-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The complainant provided two police statements, both of which were played in court in lieu of direct examination. Allegations included shoving, non-consensual sexual touching, and attempts at unwanted intercourse. During cross examination of the complainant, Mr. Whitfield presented multiple inconsistencies between the two police statements, none of which the complainant could adequately explain. The accused also testified. The trial judge found the accused’s evidence to be credible, and, in the reasons for acquittal, cited serious shortcomings in the complainant’s evidence.
P.R. acquitted of one count of Sexual Assault and one count of Assault following a two-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The complainant alleged non-consensual penetrative sex following an evening spent smoking marijuana with her former friend, the accused. The client denied any sexual contact. Several male friends of the complainant secretly recorded the accused “confessing” to the offence. At trial, the complainant claimed not to remember most of the details she had relayed to the police. Mr. Whitfield pointed to serious reliability concerns in complainant’s evidence, including an admission that the complainant had originally considered the assault to be a dream. Mr. Whitfield also noted the oppressive circumstances of the confession video. The trial judge accepted Mr. Whitfield’s submissions on the so-called confession and, in acquitting the accused, cited profound reliability concerns with the complainant’s evidence.
Charge of Sexual Assault against E.K. withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. E.K., a chiropractor, was charged with sexual assault following a treatment session with the complainant, his patient. The complainant alleged that while lying face down on E.K.’s chiropractic treatment table during a lower spine treatment, he drooled on her, exposed and then licked her buttocks. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the case. While DNA evidence established that a bodily fluid from E.K. was transferred to the complainant while he was bending over and performing the treatment, E.K. maintained that he was suffering from allergies at the time and that any fluid the complainant on her was likely an inadvertent nasal drip. Because the complainant was lying face down at all times, she was unable to see what, if anything, actually happened. The matter was set down for trial as the Crown originally refused to withdraw the charge given the complainant’s insistence that she was sexually assaulted. After lengthy discussions leading up to and including the day of trial, the Crown was persuaded as to the weaknesses in the complainant’s evidence. The Crown, as a result, agreed to withdraw the charge.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 5 withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Toronto. R.S. started an affair with a fellow employee who he was indirectly supervising. The employee moved to a different role and the two carried on an affair for two years. R.S. started to pull away from the relationship trying to gently end it as he was regretting his actions because he was married. He had several discussions with the fellow employee who was rather unhappy about him wanting to end the relationship. After he ceased intimate contact, she walked into a police station and provided a statement to police giving rise to five charges of sexual assault. R.S. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. At the outset Joseph Neuberger asked about all communications and any video or audio with the complainant. R.S. had deleted everything but still had his phone. Joseph retained a digital forensic expert and after some time, considerable data was recovered and extracted. Once disclosure was received, Joseph and Diana Davison worked through the client’s evidence to line it up with the dates of the allegations and the narrative of the complainant. Joseph drafted an RPC memo (reasonable prospect of conviction memo) for the Crown to assess the strength of the case. Joseph turned over 30 or more messages, multiple video, and audio recordings. The client had recorded three important conversations with the complainant when he was attempting to end the affair. The video evidence consisted of the complainant recording sex toys she had brought into the office for encounters and provided audio descriptions of them and what she wanted to do. Messages often were highly sexualized with the complainant often initiating the contact or replying with enthusiasm. Further the audio recordings were not only devastating to the complainant’s narrative but frightening in the sense that the complainant’s statement was diametrically opposite to the recordings and hence the truth. One audio was the complainant being upset at R.S. not satisfying her. Another was the complainant threatening to ruin R.S. life because he would not leave his wife. In fact, her statements were incredibly insidious including – “it makes me so happy and I laugh to see your face when I tell you, I will ruin your life”. Numerous comments were made consisting of threats with little to no regard for R.S. emotional state and were directly aimed at intimidating him to stay in the relationship and leave his wife. The third audio was an argument about her wanting a permanent relationship with R.S. That she would leave her partner and want to have a marriage with R.S. The complainant’s statement specifically mentioned that she was continually harassed, sexually abused, and manipulated by R.S. with not a hint of her involvement in a mutually consensual affair. This was one of the worst cases of fabrication we have seen at the firm. See our podcast episode on this case – Not on Record – on YouTube. After the Crown reviewed all defence evidence, all charges of Sexual Assault were withdrawn.
Z.P. was charged with one count of Assault and one count of Breach of an Undertaking out of Toronto. Z.P. had an argument with his girlfriend. The argument escalated to the two of them pushing and shoving each other. Z.P. asked his girlfriend to leave his residence. She refused. Z.P. called 911 and police officers arrived. After speaking to Z.P.’s girlfriend, police officers arrested Z.P. for assault. After the arrest, Z.P.’s girlfriend, the complainant, called him many times and sent him multiple text messages. Z.P. picked up a phone call from her and spoke to her. After the phone conversation, the complainant contacted police and told them that Z.P. breached his undertaking. The complainant provided a call log as proof. Z.P. was charged with a breach of undertaking. Z.P. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya put together a package with the client’s version of events, reference letters and counseling report. Furthermore, Mariya had a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney and convinced the Crown Attorney not to prosecute Z.P. After entering into a peace bond, charges against Z.P. were withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial, Toronto. The client was charged with domestic assault alleged by his former girlfriend. The client retained Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The client had broken up with his girlfriend. She attended his condo however he refused to open the door to let her in. The complainant called 911 and stated that S.S. slapped her. Officers attended and spoke with the complainant in the lobby. Officers advised the complainant that they would be arresting and charging SS and immediately told officers she lied. The complainant told officers that she did not know he would be charged when she called 911 as she thought officers would just speak with S.S. The complainant said to officers “I made up this whole thing”. The complainant said that she was upset because she “wanted to meet his parents” and they got into an argument when the client told her that they need to take a break. Ms. Condello provided the Crown with messages that the complainant had been sending to S.S. and was able to show the Crown that this was not a case of a recanting complainant, but a false allegation. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge. * Important reminder that the police fail to exercise discretion even when the complainant immediately retracts the complaint.
Charges of Domestic Assault, and Mischief withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Brantford. The client retained Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. The client and the complainant are husband and wife. The complainant, husband, alleged that his wife assaulted him and threw items at him, which broke. Ms. Condello reviewed the disclosure which showed that one of the officers wrote in the notes that the complainant was the initial aggressor, another officer noted that there were grounds to arrest the client. The notes detailed elements of aggressive acts by the complainant that ought to have resulted in his arrest. Ms. Condello spoke with the Crown Attorney regarding the inconsistency between the officers’ notes. It was further discussed that the complainant and the client wish to reconcile. It was discussed that O.G. would complete PARS therapy sessions. 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.
