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Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket Court. Ms. J.L. was charged by York Regional Police after allegedly scratching and punching her husband during a domestic dispute at their house. Ms. J.L. called police. Mandarin was her first language and she was not interviewed properly. But she had visible signs of injuries and she complained of fending off an assault from her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained medical records for his client who sustained an injury that required medical attention. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained occurrence reports of prior calls to police that established a pattern of aggressive conduct by the complainant – her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with medical records and the occurrence reports. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.
Charges of assault and threaten death (domestic) withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney. Z.K.L. was allegedly to have grabbed and pushed his wife during a heated argument about the raising of their child. There was also an allegation of a threat. However, Z.K.L. sustained scratch marks on his neck and chest while the complainant sustained no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the injuries photographed and a medical expert examine the injuries who confirmed they were fresh – proximate in time to the alleged assault – and were consistent finger nails as the manner in which the marks were made. The pictures and report were disclosed to the Crown by Joseph Neuberger. The issue became clear that the couple wanted to reconcile and so Joseph Neuberger suggested individualized counselling followed by marital counselling in order to address the reasons for the couples’ arguments. After extensive therapy, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Luring x 2 and obtaining the sexual services of someone under 18, withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. E.T. was charged in a York Regional Police sting operation. The police place an ad on the Backpages for an escort of 18 years of age. During texting, the undercover officers indicates that the pretend escort is younger than 18. In this case, the officer sent a single text to E.T. and there was no direct reply by E.T. There was no confirmation or acknowledgement by E.T. of the alleged age. Joseph Neuberger conducted extensive legal research and had several pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial. Joseph Neuberger argued that the Crown must establish that the accused knew the age and although it could be inferred, there was no evidence from the text messages that gave any evidence that E.T. had actually read the text. Further, Joseph Neuberger argued that the timing of the text with the age overlapped in time with a text sent by E.T. and he thus may not have seen the text with the age. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge.
Charges of domestic assault and threaten death withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The complainant informed N.G. that she wanted a divorce. N.G. then said that he would seek custody of the children. Within two days of that discussion, N.G. was charged by police with two domestic related offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained material from the family court and utilized the pleadings of the complainant to establish to the Crown inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement to police and her pleadings in Family court. Based on the material provided by the defence, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client were to sign a common law peace bond. As such, the client signed a common law peace bond, and the charges were withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and Ms. R.A. had been married for about two years. The marriage was having difficulties due to ongoing pressure from both of their careers and poor communication. Unfortunately the two had a heated argument which allegedly escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant allegedly sustained scratch marks to his chest and neck. The complainant called police. When police attended both the complainant and R.A. provided statements. As a result, both the complainant and R.A. were charged with assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from R.A.’s physician medical records detailing injuries well prior to this occurrence that were a result of prior abuse. Joseph Neuberger sent R.A. for private counselling. A report was furnished to the Crown along with a copy of the medical records and as a result the Crown subsequently withdrew the charge of domestic assault.
A three year odyssey successfully concluded for this client after charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 3 and Threaten Death stayed just prior to the commencement of a two week jury trial. H.B.S. was married for approximately ten years to the complainant. Unfortunately, around year eight of the marriage, the relationship soured and H.B.S. had been talking about a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the complainant signed a marriage contract that limited support and division of property upon a divorce. Ultimately, in April of 2012 the two separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home. In May of 2012, police were called to the home for a domestic incident during which H.B.S. was charged with grabbing his wife’s arm during a verbal argument. There was a small red mark on her arm. When the complainant attended the police station and provided a video statement, the complainant gave information about historical sexual assault allegations and other assaults. H.B.S. was charged with various offences including two serious sexual assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained by H.B.S. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the family court documents, a copy of the marriage contract, and documents related to the complainant’s prior marriage and divorce. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client various pieces of evidence, including emails, cards, pictures, a copy of the wedding video, plus numerous other related material for the purposes of cross-examination and to contradict the complainant’s version of the marriage. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, extensively and in a detailed fashion, cross-examined the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained an admission from the complainant that in the divorce proceedings she was seeking to set aside the marriage contract partially due to the fact that she was alleging in an abusive relationship with H.B.S. prior to marriage and prior to signing the marriage contract. Thus, a conviction in the criminal case would bolster her case in the family court to set aside the marriage contract and the complainant could then gain over $2,000,000.00. There were numerous other inconsistencies raised by the defence including that both alleged brutal sexual assaults left NO injuries, yet in May of 2012 when she called the police, a red mark was found on her arm because the complainant stated that she “bruised easily.” Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger further established that an alleged assault from 2002, supposedly witnesses by her sister, was not reliable. In fact, the complainant had written out the statement of her sister and Joseph Neuberger alleged that there was obvious collusion. Joseph Neuberger disclosed additional defence evidence to the Crown and continually argued that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Finally, just before the commencement of the jury trial, the Crown stayed all charges.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Threaten Death, withdraw after pre-trial discussions. M.S. was alleged to have been in an altercation with his former girlfriend in their apartment. Police were called by a neighbour and injuries were observed. However, the complainant refused to provide a statement. Police arrested M.S. based upon the statement of the neighbour, the injuries and the state of the apartment. M.S. retained a lawyer who then set the matter down for trial. At some point after setting the trial date, M.S. changed counsel and retained Joseph Neuberger. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed M.S., and in fact on the day of the alleged assault, M.S. had sustained injuries for which he attended his doctor. A report was obtained from the doctor by Neuberger. Further, Joseph Neuberger, adjourned the trial date and booked a judicial pre-trial. During the pre-trial, Joseph Neuberger provided the defence medical report that showed “defensive” wounds on M.S. and Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no real prospect of conviction based upon the available evidence. Further, the complainant did not want to attend court for a trial. As a result, the client signed a six month common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault x 6, Cruelty to Animals and Utter Death Threats x 2, withdrawn at the commencement of trial. H.K. and the complainant had been a couple for over 15 years and married for about six years. While H.K. was away on a business trip, the complainant attended the police station and made allegations of historical and current abuse. The complainant had hired a family law lawyer just prior to attending at the police station. When H.K. arrived home, he was arrested at the airport. The next day, the complainant filed a divorce application, seeking exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of their child. In the Application, the complainant detailed the alleged abuse and the fact that H.K. was charged with various criminal offences. H.K. was held for bail and then released with restrictions not allowing him contact or to attend the home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, obtained all of the family court documents, and reviewed years of emails and messages between the complainant and H.K. Even while away on the business trip, all communications were loving and supportive. In fact, email communications before and after alleged dates of offences showed only a loving and supportive relationship. The client also kept years of cards and pictures also demonstrating a loving relationship, all painting a picture contrary to the complainant’s version of the marriage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the communications and pictures to the Crown prior to trial as well as a detailed letter outlining the lack of corroborating evidence, and significant issues related to a possible motive to fabricate. At the eve of trial, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Utter Death Threats were withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. A.B. and the complainant, had separated about three months before the allegations were made. On the day the complainant attended the police to give a statement, A.B.’s family law lawyer had provided a letter to the complainant denying her to remove their child from Toronto. There were email exchanges between the complainant and A.B. that clearly showed the complainant was very angry that she could not remove the child from Toronto. Within a hour after receiving the letter the complainant attended police and provided a statement that some years ago A.B. had assaulted her and that this day A.B. had threatened to kill her. A.B. was arrested, and charged. Family law counsel for A.B. brought a motion to court to prevent the complainant from removing the child from Toronto. The motion was granted. Defence lawyer Joseph obtained all of the family court documents, emails between the complainant and A.B. and some past recorded arguments in which the complainant made serious threats of violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the information to the Crown. After several pre-trial discussions, including providing the Crown with an outline of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.
Charges of Aggravated Assault, Assault x2, and Utter Death Threats, withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown and during judicial pre-trials. At the point of an argument between M.D.R. and his wife, the complainant, M.D.R. informed the complainant that he wanted a divorce. While upstairs in the bedroom, the complainant called police. An investigation ensued and various statements were made about historical and current allegations of assault. The complainant refused to provide a video recorded statement but had recorded alleged threats made by her husband and had alleged medical records to support the Aggravated Assault charge. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of emails between the parties prior the police being called that supported a motive to fabricate. Further, the defence obtained the medical records which did not support the evidence of the aggravated assault charge. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a defence witness interviewed who provided a solid alibi defence to the aggravated assault charge and an explanation as to how the complainant sustained the injury. In fact, details in the medical records corroborated the statement of the defence witness. All defence investigation material was disclosed to the Crown. The complainant was advised to contact private counsel for independent legal advice. After extensive judicial pre-trial and pre-trial discussions, 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.
