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Charge of Possession of Prohibited Weapon withdrawn. The client was fishing when the OPP stopped his boat for a routine check for fishing quotas. During a search of the boat a taser device was seized and X.P. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After reviewing the notes of the officers Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and advised the Crown of a violation of X.P.’s Charter right to be free from an unreasonable search. The client was obligated to sumbit to his boat being boarded by police for the fishing quota compliance but as this was compelled by Provincial law, anything beyond a search for fish was unlawful. As a result X.P.’s rights were violated. The taser was forfeited and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn in Superior Court Barrie after the preliminary hearing. The client was at the Wayhome festival in the summer of 2016 with a group of his friends. After a performance a young lady with two acquaintances came to his campsite. They were invited to sit down and join his group for drinks. After a while the young lady began conversing with J.O. and the two soon left the actual site and were seen kissing and going into his tent. After some time the young lady left. Apparently the young lady was rather intoxicated and went to another campsite. After being at this second site she fell asleep and woke up around 5 am. She then somehow found her way to her own campsite and fell asleep in a van. The next morning when panicked that she could not find her purse she said she thought she was sexually assaulted. Mr. J.O. was eventually identified and was charged with sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all persons interviewed and just spoken to by police. All statements were transcribed and other witnesses interviewed by the defence team. The Crown alleged that the complaint was too drunk to have consented to any sexual contact and as such she lacked the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger created a chart and timeline of all persons who had contact with the complainant and requested a preliminary hearing during which all witnesses would be called and examined. The Crown resisted and wanted only the complainant to be called. After a number of contested court appearances an agreement was reached that all witnesses would be called for Joseph Neuberger to cross-examine or examine. At the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant extensively about her activities before and after her encounter with J.O. including her drinking pattern, how she walked to the campite, spoke in a pretend British accent and made up a story about her life in addition to her own research on “capacity to consent”. It appeared that the complaintant had been reading online that if a female is drunk she cannot consent. Although this is wrong in fact and law it was an interesting area of cross-examination as this erroneous held belief tainted her state of mind and thus evidence about how she behaved and her own actions. Joseph Neuberger called every single other witness in order to have a clear timeline and detail as to the complainant’s condition before and after sex with J.O. and her own actions after the sexual contact. In fact a witness the Crown did not want to call but that was called to testify by Joseph Neuberger was another young woman who did not know the complainant but was able to identify her and state that the complaintant had arrived at her campsite (established to be after having been with Mr. J.O.). This witness stated that the complaintant came to her site and was talking in a British accent and started flirting with one of her male friends including sitting on his lap. There was other relevant evidence but the evidence effectively established that although quite drunk the complainant was walking, talking and even flirting after having been with J.O. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant about her “flash backs” and established that she could not recall if in fact she consented to sex before having actual physical contact or during but had really suffered a black out. A black out does not mean a person is passed out but merely suffers memory loss as a result of the quantity of alcohol consumed. Thus, after the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger urged the head Crown Attorney to carefully review the preliminary hearing transcripts with a view to reasonable prospect of conviction. After a fair review the Crown conceded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket. M.S. was travelling on public transit when he sat down beside a female passenger. The female passenger felt M.S.’ hand touch her rear area for a few moments. As she got up to change seats, the complainant felt a grab of her rear area. She reported the incident and M.S. was charged with sexual assault. M.S. was interviewed and gave a somewhat inculpatory statement. M.S. did not retain Joseph Neuberger as his defence counsel until two years into the case. He had two previous counsel. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the evidence, and had extensive interviews with the client and his parents. M.S. was previously diagnosed with a form of Autism. Mr. Neuberger had the client undergo a psychological and psychiatric assessment to determine not only the diagnosis, but also his functional baseline in relation to the admissibility of his statement and other symptoms of his diagnosis that may have impacted on his conduct at the relevant time. The results determined that the diagnosis was still relevant and he was functioning below his age. In addition, M.S. has an unconscious habit of fidgeting and placing his hands under his legs when seated. Joseph Neuberger broke down the video surveillance from the public transit, and in fact the alleged touch while seated could in fact have been a result of this unconscious movement. The other alleged touching was not consistent with the video. Joseph Neuberger then disclosed the report, the chart and met with the Crown about the evidence at which time it was agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.
Domestic related charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 4, Assault with a Weapon, Threaten Death and Cruelty to an Animal, all withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. S.J. was in the midst of a separation and a custody battle regarding the complainant and their son. After the commencement of divorce proceedings the complainant went to police and made a number of historical claims of abuse. S.J. was charged. There were three statements from the complainant and some evidence from her father to support her allegations. Joseph Neuberger was eventually retained by the client after his first counsel recommended a guilty plea. Joseph Neuberger and his partner Grace Condello took over the file and interviewed the client extensively. Family court documents were obtained, as well as emails and messages exchanged between the complainant and S.J. leading up to the charges. There were serious financial issues at stake including a $100,000 loan made by S.J. to the father of the complainant. After extensive file investigation, Joseph Neuberger arranged a meeting with the Crown and disclosed various source documents that would have seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. The Crown agreed in light of the defence material, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were thus withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Utter Threats withdrawn after extensive cross-examination of the complainant at trial. D.M. was in a short two month relationship with the complainant. D.M. had suspicions that the complainant had gone to Niagara Falls with another person and that she was having multiple relationships. My client attended her home and found out that in fact he was correct. An argument ensued and D.M. made a threat about intimate pictures. D.M. left but the complainant called police a week later. While in the police station the complainant alleged that throughout the relationship, he beat her and forced sex on her. The Crown was seeking five to six years. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. A great deal of time was spent with the client obtaining WeChat messages up to and including the date of the offence and after. It established the complainant had sought compensation or she was go to the police. The compensation was for some damage he caused during their argument and his threat about the pictures. D.M. would not pay $5,000.00 and the complainant indeed went to the police. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello, paralegal in the firm, worked on a breakdown of the complainant’s statement in step with all of the messages obtained. At trial, the complainant expanded her allegations to over 20 sexual assaults. Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined the complainant about each allegation and established the falsehoods in each and then put to the complainant a series of pictures and messages throughout the relationship that established a loving and respectful relationship save and except for the fact that the complainant carried on a secret relationship. After several hours of cross-examination, the Crown agreed to withdraw at trial.
Charge of Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. F.H. who was in the midst of an ongoing high conflict relationship with her former husband had sole custody of their daughter but during a weekend with the father, there was an alleged complaint of abuse. F.H. was charged with assault. F.H. retained Joseph Neuberger as her defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had all statements transcribed. The transcripts were reviewed in conjunction with the video statement of the child complainant and it became fairly clear that during the interview with police and the CAS worker, the child was confused and was using “mom” to refer to another family member as she felt close to that family member like a mother. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the statement and a chart breaking down the statement to expose the errors. In addition, the defence obtain statements from the child’s family physician and teachers about not ever seeing any hint of physical or emotional abuse but to the contrary when seeing the child and F.H. together, there was an observed close bonded relationship. After extensive discussions with the Crown and review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Q.L, a prominent Real Estate Broker, had become involved with a lady who he business dealings with. One night the two were intimate. The next afternoon, after they had lunch, the complainant attended a police station and made a complaint of sexual assault. Q.L. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the allegations. Joseph Neuberger obtained the statement of the complainant, transcribed it, and then broke it down in time frames to analyze the actions of the complainant. In addition, the smart phone of the client was sent to the defence expert to retrieve messaging between the complainant and Q.L. prior and then after the alleged assault. Sometime later, after a three day trial was set, the complainant started calling Q.L. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had an investigator meet with Q.L. and set up recording devices to monitor and record the calls. The complainant kept calling and all discussions were recorded. The discussions were in Mandarin and Criminal Lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent the recordings to a certified translation service for certified transcription and translation. During the course of additional judicial pre-trials, an arrangement was made to disclose the defence evidence, on a without prejudice basis for an assessment of the prospects of conviction. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and in fact Q.L. was innocent. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement and Utter Threat. Client got married at 19 to a young lady also 19 who was a Visa student. The marriage was primarily for helping the young lady get status in Canada, but the two came to have affection for each other. However, early on into the relationship Z.C. was discovered to be cheating and this caused a series of high conflict arguments and must turmoil over a six month period of the marriage. At the end of six months, the two separated. In October of 2016, the complainant attended Z.C.’s home and smashed his car. While Z.C. was following her back to her residence (the two had separated), police were called and the complainant alleged the Z.C. had committed two very serious sexual assaults, and a host of other serious offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. There was a team placed on the file with Daisy Zhang, a senior law clerk and a senior paralegal Grace. A large volume of evidence was obtained including two statements; messages and letters as well as statements from alleged witnesses. The case eventually went to trial. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team obtained undisclosed messages sent by the complainant to Z.C. and monitored various social media forums in which the complainant was posting material that showed considerable animus about the cheating but nothing about the alleged violence. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively crossed examined the complainant on inconsistencies in her statements in addition put hundreds of messages to the complainant contradicting the sequence of events and the implausibility of events. In addition, during the trial, the complainant continued to post on social media, and on the second day or cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger put to the complainant several posts that were highly aggressive in relation to Z.C. and showed a possible fabrication of a letter that she said the complainant wrote. The complainant initially lied about the social media posts, but under continued cross-examination with more posts being shown to the complainant, she relented and admitted the posts. The complainant alleged however that Z.C. had hacked into her account to manipulate the posts and other messages, but the defence expert was able to show that this allegation was false. By the end of the trial, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to convict Z.C. of the Sexual and other charges. The client was found not guilty.
Charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with a Weapon, and Assault withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant boyfriend of S.W. was attacked by S.W. with a knife and sustained serious head injuries. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After review of the statements and interviews with the client, the situation arose from a very heated argument. It became apparent that S.W. became fearful of being attacked by the complainant and proactively obtained a knife to remove the complainant from the apartment. In addition, both parties had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. Joseph Neuberger had the complainant assessment by a therapist and a forensic psychiatrist. The reports suggested a situational psychosis of being attacked by the complainant. After months of therapy and further risk assessment, all defence reports were turned over to the Crown. The Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that there was a viable defence and that S.W. had done extensive therapy to address alcohol misuse and to demonstrate no risk. As such, all charges were withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond that would be in effect for 6 months.
Charges of Assault with a Weapon x 2 and Utter Threats x 2 withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.A.’ daughter apparently was not following her mother’s rules for the house and after an argument, while at school, the complainant made allegations against M.A. M.A. self-represented herself and wound up setting a trial. After CAS warned M.A. about her losing access to her daughter, M.A. retained Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges. Mr Neuberger reviewed the evidence, conducted a pre-trial and spoke with CAS. He then amended the bail to allow M.A. and her daugheter to enter into joint therapy. After four months of therapy and a very positive report, the Crown agreed that a “child” focused approach is far better than a trial. As such Crown agreed to withdraw all 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.
