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 failure to provide the necessities of life (alleged elder abuse case) stayed after one year of extensive judicial pre-trials. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger reviewed extensive medical records produced and statements of witnesses. Both the Crown and defence met and discussed in significant detail whether the facts showed any legal obligation of care. The complainant was living independently, and P.L. was not legally obligated to care for the complainant even though he did. The medical issue that arose was not obvious and the complainant had not wished to attend the doctor. After extensive review of case law, and all of the evidence, the Crown concluded, based on discussions with Joseph Neuberger, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was stayed.
Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his wife with allegedly grabbing and hitting her while in the kitchen during an argument. When police attended, the client spoke to police and advised that the argument occurred in the office at which time the complainant had started to throw papers and documents off of his desk. He advised police that he grabbed her to stop her from damaging his work documents. No injuries were visible. After extensive discussions with the Crown and an amendment to the bail allowing the couple to attend joint marriage counselling, the Crown withdrew all charges.
Charge of Voyeurism withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have exposed himself of two occasions in a public place. There was extensive psycho-sexual testing completed and therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the alleged conduct was related to mental health issues that did not give rise to any future risk of violence or repeat offences. The client had also completed a considerable amount of community service and remained on release for approximately a year without any further issues. As a result, the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond.
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. B.R. made allegedly made a video of an encounter with a unidentified female that appeared to be a non-consensual act. B.R. was investigated by police for an unrelated matter and his cell phone was seized and examined by police. Police demanded that B.R. provide them with the pass word to the cell phone. Police found the recording on the phone and charged B.R. A warrant was sought after the phone was seized. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the validity of the demand for the password as a breach of the client’s Charter rights and that the resulting search of the phone was unlawful. The warrant as well was deficient in many respects. Lastly, Joseph Neuberger, argued that the unidentified female may have actually consented and without a statement and hence evidence from the complainant, the Crown could not prove “lack of consent”. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, Threaten Bodily Harm, and Sexual Assault with a Weapon after a five day trial in the Superior Court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained along with counsel for the co-accused police records regarding three prior occurrences of the complainant having made sexual assault allegations that were false. In addition, cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant inconsistencies, and substantial memory and recall issues. The two accused did not testify at trial. After considering all of the evidence, the trial judge noted that there were serious issues of credibility and reliability regarding the complainant’s evidence and the Court was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not consented to the sexual contact. As such, E.K. was found not guilty of the charges.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial. The complainant alleged that she was inappropriately touched and kissed by D.K. during a tutoring session. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement from another student who was also present at the time of the alleged assault. The witness contradicted the evidence of the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the class and office area photographed. The entire space was less than 400 square feet. There was a large window between the office and the class room with a clear view into the classroom. The complainant’s mother was also present, seated in the office area, only a few steps away from where the complainant was working and allegedly assaulted. D.K. had been operating the business for over 14 years with absolutely no other complaints. At trial the Crown determined, based upon all the evidence and a number of relevant factors, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous withdrawn prior to trial date. The client was charged allegedly with hitting and brandishing a knife during an argument with her spouse. No knife was recovered. The complainant sustained no visible injuries. There were background issues pertaining to marital discord over finances and the complainant wanted N.C. to leave the house. After extensive discussions with the Crown, and the complainant taking counselling, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3 and Assault withdrawn after cross-examination by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the former spouse of R.A. R.A. and the complainant had BDSM sexual interests. After R.A. ended the relationship and retained family law counsel, the complainant went to the police and alleged a history of physical, sexual and verbal abuse. R.A. was charged and the complainant also brought a motion in Family Court to obtain sole custody of their child. In light of the charges, an interim order for sole custody was made. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a large volume of emails between the parties dating back to when the parties started dating. The emails disclosed an ongoing relationship where both parties were more than interested in sexual contact and showed that even after the alleged dates of the sexual assaults, the complainant sought intimacy with R.A. even though R.A. made it clear the he wanted no more contact. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded sexual encounters between the parties, three of which occurred after the alleged sexual assaults and after the complainant said all sexual contact had ended. R.A. was originally represented by other counsel. A full day of the preliminary hearing was conducted and the previous defence lawyer failed to cross-examine on the email messages and on the sex tapes. Defence Attorney Joseph Neuberger, once he took over the file, obtained the emails and sex recordings from the client. Joseph Neuberger then brought a section 276 Application to be allowed to cross-examine the complainant on the emails as well as the recordings. The application was granted. Joseph Neuberger then cross-examined the complainant for a full second day of the preliminary hearing. As a result of the cross-examination, the complainant’s credibility was damaged beyond repair. The Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly all charges were stayed.
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The allegations did not disclose a consistent story. The complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and the alleged assault would have resulted in injury if it were true. However, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown during pre-trial discussions and was able to establish that the Crown had a weak case. As a result, R.A. completed 12 sessions of counselling and then signed a peace bond. Both charges were withdrawn.
Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.K.W. was alleged to have followed and emailed the complainant, and ex-girlfriend, for several weeks. However, the emails that were disclosed by the complainant were only incomplete. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the email threads that established the complainant was initiating contact as well. In addition, the defence was able to establish that on two occasions when the complainant said that she was followed by C.K.W., he was in fact at work. As a result the charge was 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.
