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
R.C. was charged with assault (X4), forcible confinement, sexual assault and breach of probation against his “on and off” again girlfriend. It was alleged that R.C. bound up his girlfriend and held her against her will for over 5 hours, sexually assaulted her and physically hit her. R.C. initially retained Christopher Assie to represent him on this charge and various other related charges involving the same complainant. Mr. Assie conducted a thorough and clinical preliminary inquiry involving cross examining the complainant on various text messages and Facebook postings. R.C.’s matter then was elevated to the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave
where a one-week trial took place before a judge alone with Mr. John Navarrete as his counsel. Mr. Assie and Mr. Navarrete worked collaboratively to ensure that key points of the preliminary inquiry were raised at trial for the benefit of the client. Mr. Navarrete cross examined the complainant on the various postings and text messages and various other issues and met with the client in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre on several occasions to ensure that he was properly prepared to testify at his own trial. The jury found R.C. not guilty on all charges.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. N.O. had met the complainant on Ashley Madison and started an intimate relationship. On one night the complainant alleged an act occurred during their sexual encounter where she withdrew consent but all other contact was consensual. N.O. hired Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client over 300 messages before and after the alleged sexual assault that provided an extremely rich foundation for cross-examination of the complainant including her intention to meet up with N.O. that night to get drunk and high and forget the evening which went directly to her reliability as a witness. Other messages showed animus after the alleged event due to her financial situation and a friend who also attended the evening and trashed her car. At trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant and established key inconsistencies and issues related to her reliability. Joseph Neuberger and his team spent considerable time preparing N.O. for his testimony. At the end of the trial N.O.’a evidence was sufficient to raise more than a reasonable doubt on the main issue and as such N.O. was acquitted of the charge.
Charge of assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket, after extensive discussions with the Crown. F.L. was involved in an altercation during his son’s soccer game where a major physical dispute broke out. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After obtaining disclosure, it was astonishing that the only statements taken were from the team of the complainant and the family of the complainant’s. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation gathering other statements and eventually disclosed the statements to the Crown. The Crown determined that there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. As such the charge was withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial date. H.D. was in the midst of a highly contentious separation and in order to remove him from the matrimonial home, the complainant made a allegation of domestic assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After reviewing the statement of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger drafted a memo on the massive inconsistencies and implausibility of the allegations and disclosed the memo to the Crown. After discussions with the Crown, the charge was withdrawn and the client entered into a common law peace bond.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial after two days of cross examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant. A.K. was alleged over several years to have sexually abused young lady who came to his house for many years and was friends with A.K.’s children. Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Mariya Protsenko, were retained as the defence team. Detailed interviews were done with all family members and then detailed preparation of them for testimony. Joseph Neuberger meticulously dissected the statement of the complainant in constructing his cross-examination of the complainant. At trial Joseph Neuberger exposed the implausibility of many of the allegations, the vagueness of the allegations and drew out numerous inconsistencies in addition to establishing that by day two of the cross the complainant had been coached on how to answer questions. After the cross examination, the Crown took the position that the evidence of the complainant no longer was capable of supporting a reasonable prospect of conviction and as such all charges were withdrawn.
Client acquitted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket of Domestic Assault. F.Z. had an argument with the complainant regarding his belief that she was unfaithful to him. The complainant alleged that F.Z. had pushed her down onto a bed and choked her for at least 10 minutes. During the altercation, F.Z. sustained a serious tear to his groin area requiring 12 stitches. F.Z. called police but was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger, Paralegal Grace Condello and senior clerk Daisy Zhang conducted extensive client interviews and obtained the client’s medical records related to the injuries he sustained including a bite mark to his finger, and pictures of the injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger referred the client to a family lawyer as the complainant had applied for divorce and immediately sought sole custody of their two children. Detailed review of the evidence of the complainant was conducted, including the photographs of her injuries. The injuries showed only a scratch to on side of her neck, abrasions to her right clavical and a swollen right eye. Extensive time was spent with the client preparing him for trial. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the family lawyer the Family Court pleadings. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on her motivation to seek sole custody and that obtaining a conviction in the criminal case would help her with obtaining sole custody, thus illuminating a motive to fabricate. Further, detailed cross-examination of the alleged sequence of the alleged assault was reviewed and the complainant could not or would not explain her injuries as they did not correlate with the manner in which she described the assault. Under cross-examination there were other crucial admissions from the complainant that undermined her reliability. F.Z. testified and described that in fact he was attacked and defended himself. The manner of the attack and his defence described matched the injuries of both parties. After extensive submissions, the defence succeeded and the client was found not guilty.
Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault causing bodily harm x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was at a well attended Karaoke bar in Markham when an argument broke out between her friends and another group. A physical altercation occurred and the client was charges with having used a beer bottle to assault two complainants. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After extensive review of the disclosure and interviews of the security staff at the bar, it was apparent that two male parties were involved in the assault and not X.L.S. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the interviews and related evidence to establish that for an ulterior motive his client was falsely accused. After extensive pre-trials the Crown agreed that the charges ought to be stayed.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn in Toronto prior to trial. The client and the complainant were in relationship for two years that was very tumultuous. On the day in question, the complainant kicked C.D. out of the apartment. While packing, the two parties got into an argument. The complainant started to video record C.D. C.D. grabbed at the cell phone, struggled and then threw the phone on the ground. The complainant called 911 and C.D. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. C.D. had a history of mental health issues. Joseph Neuberger retained a therapist to work with the complainant who was also experiencing serious anxiety. A report was tendered to the assigned Crown, and it was agreed that the charge ought to be withdrawn. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. T.Z. was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend and held her in their apartment not allowing her to leave during an argument about an alleged affair. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Similar to other cases, the pictures and medical records disclosed by the Crown did not correspond with the manner in which the assault was alleged to have occurred. However, there was significant damage to the apartment. Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger arranged for T.Z. to take therapy, complete community service and pay restitution for damage to property. As a result of the excellent therapy report and deficiencies with the evidence of the complainant the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Threatening Death and Cruelty to Animal withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having threatened to kill his spouse during an argument. His former spouse also claimed that T.M. had killed her dog by kicking it to death. She claimed that T.M. had confessed to the crime. T.M. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. Counsel conducted a judicial pre-trial and ultimately scheduled a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, counsel had provided the Crown with evidence that the complainant had recanted her testimony and pointed that the evidence that the Crown wished to introduce regarding the bad character evidence of T.M. was inadmissible. Prior to the trial date, the Crown re-assessed the reasonable prospect of conviction in light of the new evidence they had and they simply withdrew the 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.
