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Charges of Sexual Assault x 5, Sexual Interference, Assault, and Extortion, withdrawn after initial stages of cross-examination of the complainant during the preliminary hearing.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the disclosed defence emails and text messages, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.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.
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.
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.
