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Charges of Sexual Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Assault x 2 and Choking withdrawn after extensive defence investigation and negotiations with the Crown Attorney.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 After extensive and prolonged discussions with the Crown, all charges were withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.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.
Client discharged of first degree, second degree murder and manslaughter after a one month preliminary hearing. C.V. was charged with numerous offences along with three other individuals regarding a robbery and shooting at a restaurant in Toronto. C.L. was not the shooter but was alleged to have been sufficiently connected to the shooting of the victim to be tried on first or second degree murder. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko defended C.L. and were able to establish that there was insufficient evidence to establish that C.L. had knowledge that any shooting would occur and that he did not play a substantial role in the death of the victim. As such C.L. was committed to trial only upon armed robbery and related offences but not the murder allegations.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.P. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault. She had a very turbulent relationship with her husband with whom she had three children. It was alleged that C.P. placed a phone call to 911 and stated that her husband was abusing one of their children. Officers arrived at C.P.s and her husband’s residency. They spoke to the children who denied any abuse. It was further alleged that the husband had some injuries and upon further inquiries, the husband stated that C.P. became very angry with him because she was drinking and that she started hitting and scratching him. Officers placed C.P under arrest. C.P. was very stressed about the situation. In addition to her criminal charges, she was going through a divorce process with her husband. Defence Counsel Mariya Protsenko was able to offer a lot of support and was always available to C.P. by email, by phone and in person. The statement of the complainant had a number of internal inconsistencies that detracted from its reliability. However, C.P. was very stressed. Counsel negotiated that C.P. complete an anger management program and the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charges upon C.P. entering into a peace bond.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Death withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. The complainant and K.A. had been married for approximately three years. The two met in Morrocco. The complainant was 15 years younger than K.A. K.A. sponsored the complainant to come to Canada and when she arrived the two got married. Allegedly shortly after the marriage arguments started between the two about their lifestyle in Canada. In July of 2015 an argument ensued and K.A. informed the complainant he wanted a divorce. The two continued to live together but shortly after the argument the complainant attended the police and alleged numerous allegations of abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger obtained from his client dozens of receipts for trips, gifts and pictures of events and holidays that when put into context showed a loving relationship with a lavish treatment of the complainant. This was in stark contrast to the statement of the complainant explaining the entire marriage as a nightmare. The matter came for preliminary hearing but the complainant refused to testify. Details of the defence case were disclosed by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for consideration of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, the Crown expressed concerns about the complainant’s emotional well being if testifying. An agreement was eventually reached for an assessment to be conducted. The assessment was completed and provided to the Crown. As a result of all of the factors in this case the Crown withdrew all charges.
Charges of Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Bodily Harm withdrawn. J.M. and her husband decided to divorce prior to trial. The two remained living separate and apart in the matrimonial home. One day an argument erupted over finances and custody of the children. The argument got heated and physical contact occurred. The complainant husband called police and gave a statement about being assaulted and his chain being torn from his neck. The chain he wore was broken. J.M. was charged, held for bail and placed on conditions to not return to the house and access to the children to be through a third party or via a family court order. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was retained. After having reviewed the two statements of the complainant and obtaining email and text communications between J.M. and the complainant for the days leading up to the alleged charges, it was obvious that threats were being made by the complainant to seek sole custody of the children and the complainant was being very demeaning in his remarks to J.M. Extensive materials were provided to the Crown including many of the communications between the parties. J.M. undertook a therapy program. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also disclosed to the Crown family court pleadings that demonstrated baseless allegations that contradicted material portions of the complainant’s statements to police. In addition the complainant was refusing to pay any support. J.M. was employed as a real estate agent and needed to maintain her employment to support herself and the children. After extensive discussions with the Crown all charges were withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn just prior to commencement of trial. M.L. was charged with assault after his ex-wife made a complaint to police about of an alleged assault immediately after she and M.L. had a disagreement over the matrimonial property. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and he carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and the family court documents. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with his client and obtained source documents to refute various aspects of the complainant’s evidence. In addition, M.L. was actually assaulted by his wife and took pictures of his injuries. The police notes showed inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. For example, when first spoken to by police, the complainant described an assault which was inconsistent with the injury claimed by the complainant. In fact the police officer noted “no injuries consistent with the alleged assault”. The next day, the complainant attended the police station to provide a video-taped statement and showed officers a swollen hand and claimed it was a result of the assault she reported but the police notes clearly indicate “the complainant could not explain how she obtained the injury”. However, her injury was consistent with M.L.’s defence and his description of how he was assaulted by the complainant. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, assisted by his senior paralegal Grace Condello, charted out the evidence, inconsistencies and the evidence supportive of M.L. M.L. had not seen his son in 9 months since being charged because the complainant had not complied with the family court order. Due to the time issues and the urgency to bring a motion on in family court, Joseph Neuberger approached the Crown and provided extensive defence disclosure including pictures and the chart of the evidence. The Crown reviewed the material and determined based upon the defence evidence there was NO reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result the charge was withdrawn.
Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant and P.L. had been dating for over two years. The relationship deteriorated and after an argument P.L. was charged with criminal harassment. Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained and P.L. attended counselling. Mariya Protsenko and Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a breakdown of the allegations in chart format and the legal test based on relevant case law. It was argued that the conduct complained of could not have made the complainant fear for her safety. A favourable therapy report was provided to the Crown and the charge was withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
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.
