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
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Charges of domestic assault, and Assault with Weapon x 2 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown.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.
Charges of Sexual Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Assault x 2 and Choking withdrawn after extensive defence investigation and negotiations with the Crown Attorney. A.Q. and his wife were having marital issues related to alleged drug abuse by the wife. One Friday, the complainant wife did not return home with the child of the marriage. A.Q. got worried and called police and CAS. The complainant and the child were found and later returned home. However, a dispute broke out about what happened and A.Q. had stated that he wanted a divorce and that the child was not safe in the complainant’s care. The next day, the complainant attended a police station along with several of her family members and made a number of historic allegations of domestic abuse including sexual assault. A.Q. was arrested. He retained Joseph Neuberger as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed all the statements including three long statements given by the complainant. A chart was creating by Joseph Neuberger noting numerous inconsistencies in details, dates, and factual allegations. In addition, when obtained medical records from the family physician, there was a complete lack of any evidence of physical injuries contemporaneous with the dates of the alleged assaults. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained other evidence with the assistance of his client and then prepared defence disclosure to the Crown along with a detailed letter outlining the reliability issues of the complainant, including a copy of the defence chart. After extensive and prolonged discussions with the Crown, all charges were withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Charges of domestic assault x 2 dismissed after one day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.S.G. had been having an affair. His wife discovered the affair and the marriage deteriorated. After a few months, S.S.G. informed his wife that he wanted a divorce. Shortly after an argument about the divorce, the complainant attended a police station and S.S.G. was charged with two charges of domestic abuse that were to have occurred one month prior. After S.S.G. was charged, the complainant filed a divorce application and specifically sought sole custody of their three year old son. The complainant had told police in her statement that she feared for her safety and that of her son. In the divorce case the complainant was opposed to any access other than supervised access for two hours once a week. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. Joseph Neuberger had the client retain a family lawyer immediately and began the defence of the case. Mr. Neuberger obtained copies of all of the family court documents. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the allegations in family court and established that in fact there were no issues of parenting by S.S.G of their son, and the complainant had no explanation as to why she sought sole custody other than revenge for the affair. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with S.S.G. in preparation for his testimony. The Crown at trial cross-examined S.S.G., to the effect that he was the “man of the house”, the “sole bread winner” and “sought to dominate his wife”. The line of cross-examination continued in this path. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant about her background and in fact the complainant had several University degrees including a Masters in Physics and a Bachelor of Education. In submissions, Joseph Neuberger cautioned the court on falling into the trap of the Crown drawing upon archaic myths and stereotypes of men seeking to “control” and exploit their position without any evidence whatsoever to support such allegations. The thrust of the Crown’s argument was essentially S.S.G., like all men, seek to dominate and control and thus abuse their wives. This was rejected by the court. S.S.G. was found not guilty of the charges.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Fraud Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. Z.L. and his girlfriend had an argument about something that had occurred regarding her friends. A decision was made by Z.L. to end their relationship. Sometime after the end of the relationship the complainant attended a police station and alleged that Z.L. had hacked into her account and transferred funds to himself. Further, she alleged allegations of sexual assault and that Z.L. knew she was underage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After careful review of the disclosure, including the two statements of the complainant and alleged banking documents, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that the banking documents were fraudulent and in fact no money had been taken from the complainant. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial during which it was established that the complainant was not reliable as to the allegations. In fact, Joseph Neuberger, produced defence evidence including pictures showing that all contact was consensual and the complainant represented to Z.L. that she was in fact 17 and not underage. As a result, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of domestic Assault x 4 stayed on the eve of trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend on two separate occasions including choking her. The complainant gave two statements to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after an in-depth interview of the client and two potential defence witnesses, sought disclosure from the Crown of two 911 calls made by the client around the dates of the alleged assaults including police records about the calls. Once obtained these calls revolved around instances of mental instability where L.Z. called police and ambulance services due to his fear of his girlfriend harming herself. It became clear from this disclosure that the complainant had unfortunately a serious mental health issue. On each instance L.Z. was restraining the complainant to prevent her from self harm. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger broke down the two statements and provided the Crown with a chart demonstrating material inconsistencies that supported the defence position that the only physical contact was for protection of the complainant and not an assault. Further, the complainant wrote a letter to the Crown about how at the time of providing her statements she was quite depressed and confused as a result of her illness. Joseph Neuberger pressed the Crown to speak with the complainant about her letter and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous court appearances and pre-trials all charges were stayed.
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.
