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
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Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date.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Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Death withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown.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.
Client acquitted of charges of Assault with Weapon x 4 (Domestic), Threat Death x 2, Sexual Assault, Assault x 3, Attempt Sexual Assault and Breach Undertaking after an eight (8) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. After a bitter separation and a decision by the court to place the children in the care of Mr. R.G., the former wife went to police an alleged historical physical and sexual abuse. There were two very lengthy statements provided by the complainant. Defence lawyers John Navarrete and Joseph Neuberger were the defence team on the file. After careful analysis of the statements, a chart of inconsistencies was drafted to assist with cross-examination. The defence lawyers obtained from the client emails, text messages, pictures, reports of experts and all the family court documentation to draft a very detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant. A lengthy probing cross-examination revealed serious issues of credibility and reliability of the complainant and the obvious motivation to fabricate the allegations to gain custody back of the children. In fact, after the charges were laid, the complainant drew on the criminal allegations to remove custody of the children from R.G. The client testified in his own defence. After detailed written submissions, the Court found Mr. R.G. not guilty of all counts.
Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 2, Mischief to Property, Trespass and Public Intoxication withdrawn after lengthy negotiations with the Crown and police. Client had a bad night with heavy drinking. When ejected from a bar, the client was not the best in public and police were called. Unfortunately, the intervention of police resulted in a scuffle that then wound up in the client being charged with a number of offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had lengthy discussions with the Crown and had the client perform community service, take various therapy programs, and undertake other restorative steps that ultimately resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges.
Charges of domestic assault, threaten death, obstruct justice, intimidate a justice participant, and fail to comply x 2, dismissed after a four day trial. S.G. was alleged to have assaulted his daughter in law, and threatened to kill her. After he was charged, the complainant attended police again and alleged that S.G. re-attended the home and not only communicated with her but attempted to have her change her story to police by threatening her with further violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After carefully scrutinizing the complainant’s evidence, Joseph Neuberger, obtained statements from S.G.’s surety and neighbours to show that at no time did S.G. return to the home where his daughter was living and obtained medical evidence about physical restrictions that S.G. had which were inconsistent with the manner in which the complainant alleged the assault occurred. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the complainant extensively and established material inconsistencies not only between her two statements but also within her in court testimony. Many of the inconsistencies were not supportive of the allegations and significantly damaged her reliability and credibility. During the second phase of the trial, upon careful consideration of the evidence, the Crown attorney directed the judge that there was no longer any prospect of conviction and S.G. was found not guilty of all charges.
Client found not guilty of charges of Internet Luring x 2, and Obtaining the Sexual Services of a Person Under 18 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged in a York Regional Police project called “Raphael” designed to catch individuals who are attempting to obtain services of minors. The client had messaged a lady who advertised on the Backpages website and unbeknownst to the client the person at the other end was an undercover police officer. The main issue was given the context of the communications, the timing and sequencing of messages, did the client take reasonable steps to ascertain the person purported to be the escort was older than 18. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established through cross-examination at trial that P.L. had in fact inquired about age and because of the overlap in messaging, P.L. had the reasonable belief that the alleged escort was actually 25, when in fact the undercover officer was referring to an amount of money in his messages but without the use of a dollar sign. Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized the messages and obtained a forensic analysis of the client’s phone to establish timing of the messages. A comprehensive book of authorities was filed at trial by the defence and it was clear to the judge that P.L.’s belief that the person he thought he was communicating with was 25 and not underage, and thus he had taken “reasonable steps” to ascertain the age and was satisfied that she was 25 years of age. This was a very technical defence based on the evidence and case law, BUT P.L. was sincere and honest in his belief and was found not guilty at trial.
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.
