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 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.
Charges of Kidnapping x 2, Extortion, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with Weapon, Point Firearm, Criminal Organizations, stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice at the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted a Chinese Visa student as a result of an issue regarding a young lady and for the purposes of extortion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained video surveillance from the various locations showing the complainant was not under the control of the client and in fact appeared to be interacting in a friendly manner. The alleged injuries as reflected in the medical records were not consistent with the alleged beatings. Further, Joseph Neuberger interviewed several defence witnesses and provided the evidence to the Crown. The complainant left Canada and the Crown sought mutual legal assistance from the People’s Republic of China but the defence challenged the use of video testimony as the laws of China were to apply to the preliminary hearing. The defence was successful on a motion and the Crown stayed all charges.
Charges of Assault x 3, Weapons Dangerous x 3, Threaten Death x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn on the first day of trial. The client was charged with a number of domestic related offences. The complainant brought the allegations after deciding to separate from A.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger raised significant inconsistencies between the statement of the complainant, her daughter’s statement, and Affidavit material filed in the Family Court Proceeding. Cross examination focused on these inconsistencies. After a break in the trial the Crown withdrew the charges as a result of no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Threaten Death (Domestic), dismissed after seven day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at 1000 Finch Avenue West. S.P. was alleged to have sexually and physically abused his niece from the moment she arrived in Canada from March of 2012 up to January 7, 2015. The complainant had medical records demonstrating that she sustained injuries including a broken nose, bruising and puncture wounds. The medical records were from her visit to hospital at the time S.P. was arrested. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained as the lead defence counsel and Mariya Protsenko as the second defence lawyer on the file. Careful review and scrutiny of the complainant’s statement and medical records was conducted along with an extensive defence investigation. A private investigator was hired who interviewed three independent witnesses that testified at trial as to observing the complainant fall on January 7th and sustain certain injuries and another witness as to the compliant having confided in her that the complainant wanted to break up S.P.’s marriage so that she could marry him and obtain immigration status in Canada. At trial, the complainant’s evidence became far more detailed and extensive than in her statement to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant over a two day period putting to her numerous inconsistencies, omissions and improbable assertions that undermined her credibility. Joseph Neuberger utilized the medical records to also undermine the complainant’s evidence about the alleged physical and sexual abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert in order to assert in cross-examination that the medical records proffered by the Crown were inconsistent with the evidence of the alleged abuse. Further, the defence marshalled the theory that the complainant lied about the allegations to protect her secret agenda that had been discovered by S.P. on January 7th and was to be exposed to her family. After extensive a detailed cross-examination of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the defence called three independent witnesses and then rested its case. The Court determined that the complainant was not credible or reliable and thus found S.P. not guilty of all charges.
After a trial lasting over 3 years, with numerous civilian and police witnesses being called, client acquitted of several charges in the Ontario Court of Justice, including assaulting peace officer and assault with a weapon. Client was charged with several offences after an incident occurred in an apartment building in Toronto, which ultimately resulted in the client being shot 5 times with a C-8 assault rifle by police. Extensive cross-examination of all witnesses revealed inconsistencies in the evidence which resulted in all charges being dismissed.
Client acquitted of 2 counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement relating to two different complainants, in two separate incidents that occurred at a work party. Both complainants were extensively cross-examined by lawyer Stacey Nichols, revealing serious inconsistencies in their stories which resulted in the client being acquitted of all charges in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence witnesses were also called by Ms. Nichols which contradicted both Complainant’s version of events.
Client found not guilty of Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Utter Death Threats, Point Firearm, and Possession of Firearm, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. M.N. was alleged to have threatened and assaulted his ex-wife over an alleged dispute regarding their son. M.N. and the complainant had been divorced for several years but were still sharing custody of their young son. Over the course of a few months, tensions got heated regarding custody and child support issues. The complainant alleged that on Mother’s Day M.N. attended her apartment building and waited for her to return from work. As she was walking to the apartment at approximately 8:00 p.m. she alleged that M.N. got out of his car and pushed her to the corner of the building and put a gun to her head, threatening to kill her unless she provided him with the baby bonus cheques. M.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko. After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody. In fact, arguments had occurred prior to the date of the alleged offence wherein M.N. had suggested that their son would be better off living with him and his family because the complainant was working long hours and travelling extensively. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents and used a number of the documents in cross examination of the complainant. Further, at trial, evidence of the complainant suggested that the event took well over 10 minutes with extensive details of how the event unfolded. However, the building video surveillance showed M.N. exiting his car, walking up to the complainant, then going out of range, and coming back to his car with a duration of less than 60 seconds. In cross examination, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to draw out the alleged details from the complainant and then put to the complainant the actual duration of the surveillance. Further, material inconsistencies arose during cross-examination that undermined her credibility. M.N. testified in his own defence and denied the allegations. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court acquitted M.N. of all charges.
Read More
Charges of Firearms Trafficking, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Weapons Dangerous and Possession of Overcapacity Magazines all withdrawn just prior to trial. I.Z.’s home was searched pursuant to a Warrant issued on the primary basis of a confidential source’s information. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, reviewed the Warrant, and the Information to Obtain, and sought source material. It was obvious very little was done by police to confirm the C.I.’s information. In fact, surveillance of I.Z. yielded nothing of probative value although the Justice issued the Warrant. Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional Challenge alleging a section 8 Search and Seizure breach such that the Warrant was deficient and provided insufficient grounds for a search. Just prior to trial, the crown conceded that the Warrant was thin and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges. As a result all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Mischief, Domestic Assault, Threatening, Breach of Bail, Mischief to Data and Obstruct all withdrawn prior to commencement of the trial. P.O. who was charged with domestic allegations by his wife while he was on bail for a Refuse Roadside Sample for which she was the one who called police, was alleged to have communicated with her after being charged and the complainant alleged a historical assault, a threat to kill her and other allegations regarding their jointly owned business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the complainant fabricated the allegations because P.O. had filed for divorce and for her to gain an economic advantage in the divorce. Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic technology expert to show there was no mischief to data and interference with the complainant’s business. As a result all charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of a charge of Sexual Assault after five day trial in the Superior Court in Barrie. D.I. was invited to a party in Barrie at a young lady’s home whom he met via Plenty of Fish dating site. The party became extremely large and out of control. D.I. was drinking as everyone at the party was intoxicated and using marijuana. The complainant met up with the client during the evening and took shots from his bottle. At some point, the two went to D.I.’s car and sexual intercourse took place. As D.I. was exiting the car, he was pulling up his pants and a police officer had arrived and noticed D.I. D.I. appeared highly intoxicated and the officer thought he was going to attempt to drive. When he looked into the car, the officer found the complainant passed out in the car. Several police and paramedics attempted to wake up the complainant but she was unresponsive. She was removed from the car, place on a stretcher and taken to hospital. D.I. was charged with sexual assault.
The Crown pursued the prosecution on two grounds. First, that the complainant was heavily intoxicated and D.I. knew she was heavily intoxicated. Her blood alcohol readings were between 254 and 295 mg per 100 millilitres of blood. A very high level. Thus the Crown argued that at such a high level of intoxication she lacked the “capacity” to consent to sexual activity and D.I. knew this or was wilfully blind that he lacked consent. The second ground was that the complainant must have passed out during sexual contact in the car and thus D.I. no longer had consent as per the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Regina v. J.R.. In addition, the Crown relied on an Ontario Court of Justice decision wherein the Court stated that because the complainant in that case was passed out and was unresponsive, there was clear evidence that she lacked the capacity to consent.
Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined all Crown witnesses as to their observations of the complainant and showed that all Crown witnesses were unreliable. However, the complainant, under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, admitted that she has been drinking excessively for several months leading up to the date of the party. In fact, the complainant drank four to five times per week at least 375 ml of rum per night and when drunk was a heavy sleeper. The complainant admitted to being an experienced drinker who developed a high level of tolerance. During the party, she admitted to be a social butterfly and being able to socialize, talk, walk and have fun. That the alcohol helped her be more social and she enjoyed herself. However, after a point of drinking she had no memory of the events. Under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger she admitted that she cannot remember if she consented to sexual contact due to her memory loss.
An expert toxicologist testified for the Crown. The toxicologist testified at to the blood alcohol levels and the general effects of high levels of alcohol. Under cross-examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the expert agreed that the pattern of drinking of the complainant is indicative of a “heavy” drinker and she would not doubt have a higher degree of tolerance. It would be no surprise that she could be functional even while at such a high level of intoxication. More importantly, the expert agreed that just because the complainant was found to be passed out in the car and not responding to police and paramedics, thus in a deep sleep, it does not mean that the complainant could not have been functional 10, 12, 13 or even 15 minutes prior to being found passed out. This one important evidentiary point directly contradicts that finding of the court in the case the Crown was relying upon.
Stacey Nichols and Joseph Neuberger crossed other witnesses that showed the complainant was functional and in fact was outside the house having a cigarette minutes before the sexual contact, and appeared to smile and be “fine”. In addition, although the Crown refused to call medical evidence, Joseph Neuberger extracted from the police witnesses that the complainant was released from hospital some two hours later without any treatment for alcohol poisoning or for any distress and that in fact by an hour or so after her arrival in hospital she was awake and talking to hospital staff. Thus, this evidence detracted from the argument that the complainant was in an exceptionally intoxicated state. Finally, the Crown tendered the video statement of the client.
Based on all the evidence, the Court found D.I. innocent and thus not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.
Case Comment: When dealing with sexual assault cases where the Crown alleges “incapacity to consent” it is extremely important to focus on the surrounding evidence and understand cognitive functioning and that consent to intimate contact requires a minimal level of cognitive functioning.
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.
