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 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 As a result, the client signed a six month common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault x 6, Cruelty to Animals and Utter Death Threats x 2, withdrawn at the commencement of trial.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.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching, stayed after evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the daughter of R.K.’s girlfriend. R.K. and the mother of the complainant had been in a committed relationship for three years. The complainant stated that for a two to three month period in the fall of 2014, R.K. had been touching her inappropriately. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the complainant and the mother of the complainant. Based on the statement of the mother, there appeared to very limited opportunity to have committed any of the alleged sexual assaults and more importantly when comparing the circumstances as described by the mother and the complainant, as to the nature of the relationships, the allegations seemed highly implausible. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to retrieve deleted emails and social media contacts between the complainant and R.K. that showed a healthy and caring relationship almost up to the point that the complainant made her allegations. Just prior to making the allegations, the complainant’s mother had decided to list her house for sale in order to move in with R.K.. This caused considerable emotional fear for the complainant as she did not want the house sold. The defence believed that the allegations were based on the complainant’s fear of her life changing and her mother moving on with her life, such that the allegations were an attempt to break up the relationship with R.K. After testimony at the preliminary hearing and a recantation under examination, the Crown decided to stay all charges.
Charges of domestic assault and assault with a weapon withdraw after judicial pre-trial. N.D. was alleged to have stopped his car when his girlfriend exited the car and went to run off. N.D. was accused of forcibly pushing the young lady back in the car and hitting her with an object. The alleged victim would not cooperate with police and during the investigation was in fact charged with public intoxication. A civilian allegedly witnessed the events from about a 100 metres away. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the scene and took measurements and pictures to establish that the witness could not have had a clear view and would not have been able to identify the client. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that given the evidence the charges could not be proven. As a result both charges were withdrawn.
Client charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and administering obnoxious substance arising from a one night stand in Niagara Falls. After a thorough cross examination by defence lawyer John Navarrete of the complainant at the jury at trial, the client was acquitted of all charges. Mr. Navarrete worked with his client closely to ensure not only that he was prepared for his testimony at trial but that all details from the night in question were explored and reviewed.
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend after a night of entertainment in downtown Toronto. Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at College Park. After Mr. Navarrete’s cross examination of the complainant, the court concluded that the complainant’s evidence was simply unreliable given her consumption of alcohol. The client was acquitted at trial.
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown’s office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown’s review. The Crown withdrew the charges and the client entered into a common law peace bond.
Client charged with a historical sexual assault involving a family member. After reviewing disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney’s office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the Crown’s case particularly the complainant’s lack of a concrete recollection and issues regarding her mental health. The 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.
