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Charge of Assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions. C.P. had tracked down a group of young boys who he thought were bullying his daughter. When confronted, the boys were upset and a struggle ensued. Police were called by one of the boy’s parents and C.P. was charged with assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and although C.P. had only his daughter’s best interests at heart, there was a better way of handling the situation. C.P. completed five sessions of counselling and the charge was withdrawn. As a note, the boys were spoken to by police about the bullying issue.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault with Weapon x 2, Assault x 7, Utter Threats and Mischief all withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant and P.R. were in an intimate affair that was discovered by the complainant’s spouse. The affair continued but again was exposed. An argument erupted between the complainant and P.R. that resulted in the spouse of the complainant contacting police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Aside from analyzing all of the statements, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger canvassed a number of social media contacts that materially undermined the evidence of the complainant. After detailed pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, it was determined that the Crown would not proceed with the charges and as such, all charges were stayed.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Threaten Death, all withdrawn on the eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. M.H. was in a relationship with the complainant. The two were discussing engagement. At some point, a disagreement arose regarding whether the complainant was dating another person. In fact there was another male party and after this was discovered a further argument occurred between the complainant and M.H. After a visit by M.H. with the complainant, a call was made to police by the other boyfriend and then the complainant gave a statement resulting in charges being laid against M.H. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Subsequent to the charges being laid, Joseph Neuberger advised M.H. that in all likelihood the complainant will attempt to make contact. As such, a defence investigation was set up over social media and for calls. Two relevant calls were made, recorded and then transcribed. In addition a number of messages was sent to M.H. The calls and messages were in substance contrary to the statement originally given by the complainant. Just prior to trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger discovered that the other male party was charged with criminal harassment by the same complainant. Joseph Neuberger requested as disclosure the statement in that proceeding. It was further uncovered that the complainant alleged that she was forced to claim sexual assault allegations against M.H. by her other boyfriend. Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown and provided a detailed letter setting out the deficiencies with the complainant’s statement and providing transcripts of the recorded calls and copies of the messages. The Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. K.J. was married to the complainant. A bitter divorce ensued and the complainant was originally charged with various offences after separation. He was convicted of assault and fail to comply. Sometime after those convictions, the complainant then alleged that K.J. was making calls to his employer, posting information on social media and making calls to an agency that the complainant was associated with, all of which was alleged to have caused him to fear for his safety. He also alleged that he lost his job because of the calls. Joseph Neuberger was the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of the family court documents, the statement of defence from the wrongful dismissal action brought by the complainant against his former employer and the recordings of the calls made by K.J. Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown and provided a chart detailing the allegations and the source material to refute much of what was alleged by the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that all impugned calls may have been unpleasant for the complainant but they contained truthful information and did not contain any threats. More importantly, the complainant was not truthful about many aspects of his evidence. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no criminal offence committed by K.J. and as such the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to touching dismissed. The trial began in the Superior of Court of Justice, Toronto. The charges were in relation to allegations that the accused molested his son nearly a dozen times over the course of a month. Defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. He conducted a preliminary inquiry and cross-examined the complainant and his sister in great detail. At trial, Christopher Assie vigorously cross-examined the complainant and elicited dozens of contradictions between his testimony and various statements to the police. The complainant admitted to having lied to the police in order to incriminate his father. Through a skillful cross-examination, Christopher Assie was able to set out that the complainant had fabricated the abuse in order to have his father removed from the home due to the parental alienation that his mother had inflicted on her son. The cross-examination was so powerful that the prosecutor acknowledged that irreparable harm had been done to the complainant’s credibility and that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor elected to not call any further evidence and urged the judge to dismiss the case against the client.
Charges of domestic assault, and Assault with Weapon x 2 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. M.S. and his wife got into an argument over chats that she had discovered on his computer. The two got into a heated argument that then escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant wife contacted police and M.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence lawyer. At the initial intake meeting, Joseph Neuberger noted that M.S. had injuries. These injuries were not documented by the police. M.S. was sent to his doctor immediately and photographed. It was discovered that in fact M.S. had sustained a serious head injury, and abrasions. A full report was obtained from his doctor and was provided to the Crown with pictures of the injuries. Joseph Neuberger was able to send a private investigator to take a further statement from the complainant and photograph the kitchen where the fight is alleged to have occurred. Blood photographed on the wall matched the description given by M.S. to his defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials but turned over the further statement of the complainant, photographs of the kitchen and a description of how the alleged assault took place and M.S.’ version was the correct version in which he was attacked first and sustained the more serious injuries. An agreement was reached to withdraw all charges and the client signed a six month common law peace bond.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after lengthy period of discussions with the Crown. D.P. had just separated from her wife. An argument erupted over custody of their one son. Prior to separation, the wife (complainant) was living out of the country and D.P. was in primary care of their son. D.P. left the house to avoid any further argument as the son was present in the house. When he returned an hour later, police were at the house and he was accused of assaulting his wife. The complainant immediately filed in Family court for sole custody but an Order was granted with some access to D.P. on an interim basis. The complainant refused to allow the son to see D.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired and obtained all of the family court documents and used the filed affidavits by the complainant to establish material inconsistencies between her statement to police and the family court filings. Eventually the Crown withdrew the charge.
Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Bracebridge. The charges were of two separate complainants. One was alleged to have occurred in 2010 and the other in 2014. In 2014 G.C. met a lady off of Plenty of Fish website. They had a date. G.C. slept over at the complainant’s home and left the next morning. About three days later he was contacted by police and charged with sexual assault, allegedly holding the complainant down and masturbating in front of her. When that case was investigated, the police dug up a complaint from 2010 and reinvestigated that case and decided to lay the charge in addition to the 2014 allegation. The 2010 complaint was from G.C. seeing a young lady for about four to five weeks and she alleged that he forced sexual intercourse on her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger conducted a preliminary hearing and cross-examined each complainant in great detail. He also called other witnesses regarding the 2010 allegation that established exculpatory evidence. The case was then set down for trial in the Superior Court. The Crown brought an application for Similar Facts in order to support the credibility of each complainant. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross examined the 2014 complainant on a series of messaging that showed clearly an overtone of sexual interest prior to the date. In addition messages sent by the complainant immediately after the alleged sexual assault included “LOL” and a message that was at odds with her complaint. This evidence proved to be very compelling in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish other areas of issues with her evidence that defied logic and common sense. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the second complainant on her memory issues, obvious fabricated evidence, inconsistencies and the fact that the complainant had found out after the date of the alleged intercourse that G.C. had in fact met and had a romantic night with her best friend. Joseph Neuberger then called the complainant’s sister who spoke with the complainant the day after the alleged sexual assault. The sister knew G.C. from coming around the home and was told by the complainant that she was “head over heels” for G.C., and that she was excited at her relationship with G.C. going to the next level. There were other statements made after the alleged incident including that the complainant found out about the relationship with her friend and only then went to the police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged that out of immaturity and anger, the complainant felt wronged and went to the police and made an allegation that was not true. At trial the client was well prepared to testify and gave his response to the allegations. In judgment, the Court dismissed the similar act application finding in fact that the two cases were not connected in time nor circumstances, and accepted the evidence of G.C. In fact, the Court accepted the defence argument in finding both complainants not credible. The judgment goes quite far in finding G.C. factually innocent. Thus G.C. was acquitted of both charges of sexual assault.
Two charges of Indecent Act withdrawn after a year and half of negotiations with the Crown. The client was alleged to have exposed himself twice in a cemetery. There were two witnesses who identified him. He was arrested some six months after the alleged offences. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained to defend the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to attack the identification evidence however there was other independent evidence that supported the identification. M.B. was referred by his defence team to undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment and therapy. After a comprehensive assessment and therapy, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.
Charge of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after numerous judicial pre-trials. K.Z. had met a young lady and the two went to dinner and then decided to stay at a hotel. During the course of the evening an argument broke out and the complainant ran from the room to the front lobby and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted. The client was arrested. He was in Canada as a student and any finding of guilt would have resulted not only in jail but removal from Canada. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained. Joseph Neuberger consented to DNA testing as the Crown wanted to see if in fact any DNA from K.Z. was on the complainant. Furthermore the client had given a problematic statement to police but there were contradictory aspects to the complainant’s statement as well. The DNA results showed the presence of DNA that matched K.Z. but was not where the complainant had alleged it would be on her person. Further there could have been innocent transference of DNA. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko researched the statement issue and developed a strong argument to exclude the client’s statement from trial. After extensive discussions with the Crown and the pr-trial judge about the merits of the case, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client signed a common law peace bond. As such, 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.
