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Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous withdrawn prior to trial date.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 After extensive discussions with the Crown, and the complainant taking counselling, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3 and Assault withdrawn after cross-examination by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant at the preliminary hearing.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.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant alleged that S.T. had struck her while at Canada’s Wonderland. The client was arrested by security. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement of another witness that showed the complainant and first grabbed the crotch area of S.T. resulting in him striking her to get her to stop the assault. As a result of the independent witness statement the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Extortion discharged after completion of the Preliminary Hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a subordinate volunteer at a religious centre over the course of several years. The historical sexual assault allegations included a wide ranging array of sexual acts, as well as threats and coercion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively and aggressively cross-examined the complainant at the preliminary hearing. Numerous text messages and chats were put to the complainant in an attempt to establish that the complainant did not view A.R. as a person in authority and more importantly actively pursued him over the years for a relationship. The complainant admitted contacting A.R. “all the time” and expressing her love for him and wanting to be with him. She even attended his home and maintained a friendship with his wife and insisted on babysitting A.R.’s daughter. After cross-examination, the Crown Attorney reviewed the evidence and decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charges were discharged (meaning no evidence to commit to trial on).
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, client was acquitted. Lawyer John Navarrete cross examined the complainant and after the evidence was closed, the Judge stated, “he could not believe one word” from the complainant. Mr. Navarrete in a careful cross examination demonstrated the complainant’s lack of credibility, reliability and believability. The accused had also been charged for Fail to Comply with a his terms of bail and his trial scheduled shortly after the assault trial, but the Crown decided to withdraw that charge because she no longer believed the complainant either.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Forcible Confinement, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Pembroke, Ontario. J.Y. had arranged a date with a young lady through a social chat site. After the couple had relations, an argument ensued and the police were called. J.Y. was charged. At trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, directly challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability on many aspects of her story. It was established through cross-examination that there was no assault and no forcible confinement. Further, the complainant’s version of how the evening unfolded was not believable given the objective evidence and text messages. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that her version of events was unrealistic in relation to some admissions made by the complainant and the text messages. As a result J.Y. was acquitted of all charges.
Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic) withdrawn prior to setting trial date. S.Z. was accused of assaulting his ex-wife on two separate occasions. The client had taken pictures of injuries he sustained during the course of the altercations. Just after the charges were laid, the complainant moved in Family Court for an order for exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through numerous prior emails from the complainant a pattern of threatening conduct wherein if S.Z. did not make a settlement with the complainant she was make false allegations against him. After detained discussions with the Crown and a lengthy judicial pre-trial, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that the complainant had serious credibility issues. In addition it was S.Z. who suffered injury and not the complainant. As a result both charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of three counts of assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Guelph. J.S. was charged with having assaulted three bouncers by punching them and spitting blood at them while at a nightclub. Five security personnel from the bar and three police officers testified for the prosecution. Interestingly there were no witnesses from the bar other than police and security. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officer in charge and all witnesses on the deficient investigation in relation to not taking statements from any “independent” witnesses and the lack of any surveillance footage of the alleged assaults. The bar had a digital security surveillance system yet there was NO video. Further, there were no photos of any alleged injuries. J.S. had sustained serious injury and Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined each prosecution witness on the photographs of J.S.’s injuries and asked which were responsible for the injuries. Not one prosecution witness would admit any punch or kick to J.S. during the alleged struggle. After extensive cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish numerous inconsistencies and the simple fact that certain prosecution witnesses were not being forthright in their evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all 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.
