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 after two day preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice of two charges of Sexual Exploitation. J.C.H. was charged arising from his position as a teacher at a school where the two complainants had been attending. The two complainants were long time friends of J.C.H.. The friendships had formed long before J.C.H. had completed University and was certified as a teacher. However, while being a teacher at the same school as the two young ladies, intimate relationships had developed with these young ladies at two different times over a two year period. There were no allegations of sexual assault and the relationships were consensual. However, when the parents found out about the relationships, complaints were made to the police and after a very extensive investigation, J.C.H. was charged with the two counts of sexual exploitation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger went through the voluminous information provided by police in a very detailed fashion including the witnesses statements and the statements of the two young ladies who were the “complainants”. After review of the relevant law, Joseph Neuberger, developed a strategy for cross-examination to bring out the true circumstances of the relationships. The prosecution argued that being a trust family friend of the two young ladies and a teacher at the school with some teaching contact with the young ladies, J.C.H. was in a position of trust and/or authority and there thus guilty. After focused cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the two young ladies at the preliminary hearing and argument in line with the law, the preliminary hearing judge found that there was no evidence to conclude, given the facts are elicited in cross-examination, that J.C.H. was in a position of trust or authority. J.C.H. was factually innocent of the allegations. Usually a teacher is in a position of trust or authority of a student but the determination is fact driven. In this case, the prior healthy relationships, and the evidence of the complainants at the preliminary hearing did not disclose that the nature of the relationships were that of student and teacher but in fact friends. Further, there was minimal contact at school where J.C.H. acted as a supply teacher for both young ladies. Accordingly, J.C.H. was discharged of the offences.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials regarding the merits of the prosecution’s case. Mr. D.M. had been divorced from the complainant for over a decade. Unfortunately, relations between the two remained unpleasant. D.M. attended the complainant’s home to meet his two adult son’s and parked his car in the driveway. When he and his sons returned to the residence, the complainant parked behind D.M.’s car and confronted D.M. about parking on her property. An alleged physical altercation occurred and D.M. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had two statements taken from one of D.M.’s son and his fiancé. These statements were provided as defence disclosure to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger argued at the pre-trials that it was the complainant who intentionally sought out a confrontation. This was evidenced from blocking D.M.’s car and approaching him for an argument. After extensive judicial pre-trials, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that at best there would be competing versions of the event as there were witnesses for both the complainant and D.M. who are credible. In the spirit of not having to have even adult children continue in the parental conflict, Joseph Neuberger negotiated that the charge would be withdrawn if D.M. completed an anger management program and conflict resolution course and then would sign a section 810 peace bond. D.M. completed the program, signed the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn. The peace bond was not an admission of any liability and the withdrawal is consistent with the client being innocent. However, given that the children of the failed marriage had been through a lot, it made good sense to resolve without any trial. As such, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of domestic assault x 3 withdrawn in the Orangeville Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial dates. A.D. and the complainant allegedly had an altercation wherein A.D. is alleged to have pushed, slapped and grabbed the complainant, his wife. The wife alleged the assaults started in the kitchen and moved to the living room. When police arrived A.D. gave a statement to police that the complainant had come into his office and their discussions quickly escalated to a loud argument about finances. A.D. stated that the complainant wanted him to leave the house and started pushing off his work from his desk, including his computer. When police searched the house, notes were made by the officers that the home office was in a state of disarray and the lap top computer was on the floor. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and given the nature of the alleged assaults, no injuries were noted by the police. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, established that in fact A.D.’s version was at the least credible and gave rise to a valid defence. Further, a subsequent interview of the complainant revealed that in fact an argument did take place in the home office and not in the kitchen or the living room. Based on these and other important admissions, it was agreed that A.D. would sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of domestic assault x2, and threatening withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials on the merits of the allegations. Sadly, the complainant wife and F.L. were going through a very stressful time in their lives given the health of the child of the marriage. Verbal arguments were common but the complainant alleged that throughout the marriage F.L. was verbally and physically abusive and on one particular day, that F.L. threw a salad bowl at her and her mother. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed collateral witnesses who were closely involved with the family for months leading up to the alleged assault. All witnesses contradicted the version of the marriage and in fact gave very positive evidence about the interactions of the couple. Further, upon careful scrutiny of the statements of the wife and the mother in law, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a chart of inconsistencies establishing to the Crown material deficiencies in the prosecution evidence that would affect credibility. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.S. was charged with allegedly assaulting his girlfriend while he was asking her to move out of his apartment. The two had been living together for a short period of time and the relationship had been deteriorating. The complainant was from out of town and moved to Toronto to live with A.S. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer on the matter, reviewed the statement and evidence. There were no injuries consistent with the alleged assault and the 911 call was made in a calm manner. The fact that the alleged assault occurred coincidentally at the same time as A.S. requesting she leave the premises gave rise to a suspicion of fabrication. Joseph Neuberger negotiated that A.S. attend a therapy group and after completion of the program, the charge would be withdrawn. As such, A.S. signed a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Assault, Assault Peace Officer, Mischief Under $5,000.00, and Unlawfully in a Dwelling, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client, while highly intoxicated, entered the wrong apartment thinking it was his apartment. The client lay down on the couch and when the occupant found the I.Z., a struggle ensued with damage to the apartment. Later there was also a struggle with police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, had the client immediately assessed. The client was young and had never drank before. The independently verified about of alcohol consumed severely impaired the judgment of I.Z. and resulted in him truly believing he was in his own apartment. After therapy and community service work, Joseph Neuberger, negotiated with the Crown that I.Z. sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 5, Sexual Interference, Assault, and Extortion, withdrawn after initial stages of cross-examination of the complainant during the preliminary hearing. A.S. and the complainant were in a relationship for approximately three years. The allegations are domestic related charges. The complainant gave a statement to police in 2013 that A.S. had sexually assaulted her during the early stages of dating when she was only 15 years of age and then after breaking up when she was 18, A.S. had assaulted and sexually assaulted her on numerous times during 2011, 2012 and 2013. There were also allegations that A.S. was forcing the complainant to have intimate relations under the threat of releasing a photo of her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained with the assistance of a forensic expert, historical text and email communications between the parties dating back to 2010. The voluminous amount of communications disclosed that the two continued a relationship and there were other issues that impacted why the complainant had come forth to police and made allegations that were inaccurate given the real state of their relationship. After early cross-examination, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sat down with the Crown Attorney and walked him through the material and history of A.S. and the complainant. The Crown very fairly determined that based upon the disclosed defence emails and text messages, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.
Charge of sexual assault stayed on first day of trial. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a female he met from a dating website. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed numerous text messages between the parties. In addition the defence obtained a copy of the complainant’s profile that she placed on the website. Tracking of the complainants activities showed shortly after the alleged sexual assault, the complainant was back on several dating websites. At trial, there were issues related to the complainant’s ability to testify and after discussions between Joseph Neuberger and the Crown, the charge was formally stayed.
Client found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto of sexual assault. The client was accused of attending the complainant’s room in a housing unit around 2:30 am and forcing himself on her. The complainant and P.G. were from Taiwan. The complainant was attending school and had befriended P.G. In the complainant’s statement and testimony she minimized any real contact and relationship with P.G. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from his client’s phone a voluminous amount of text and email communications that directly contradicted the complainant. After extensive cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant had downplayed significant aspects of her relationship with P.G.. Further, available evidence did not support her story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed a defence witness who he called at trial. The witness directly contradicted the complainant on material aspects of her evidence. P.G. testified. In the end, the client was found not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was a student adviser/teacher and was alleged to have sexually assaulted an international student at the residence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on text messages sent two days after the alleged assault to Q.J. and just prior to her attendance at the police station. The messages revealed a motive to fabricate. In addition, it appeared that the complainant had colluded with a potential witness which came out during cross-examination of the complainant. During cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant became vague and unclear on discussions and meetings she had with Q.J. prior to the alleged assault. Further, the defence interviewed an independent witness which contradicted the complainant on a number of facts. As such, Q.J. was found not guilty of the charges.
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.
