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Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, and Forcible Confinement, withdrawn eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. M.M. was accused by his niece of a sexual abuse allegations. M.M. had been living with his brother and hence the complainant. M.M. was asked by his brother to help out with monitoring homework and limiting access to social media after school. The two became embroiled in an argument and within days M.M. was charged with multiple sexual offences. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the charges. The complainant provided a video statement to police but then a short while after, the complainant went to police and gave a second video statement recanting her first statement and explaining that she was very mad at M.M. for taking her iPad and then searching it finding out she had been on some inappropriate social media sites. The matter proceeded to trial, and Joseph Neuberger challenged the section 715.1 application to have the first statement admitted as it did not have sufficient reliability given the recantation. A motion record was filed and just before trial, Joseph Neuberger and the assigned Crown worked out a resolution for a common law peace bond to be signed by M.M. and all charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of 3 counts of Forcible Confinement, 1 count of Assault, 1 count of Assault with a weapon, 1 count of Assault Bodily Harm and 1 count of Intimidation by threats following a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to defend J.B. Between the dates of January 1, 2006, and July 26, 2023, J.B. and L.D. resided in various residences within the GTA. Throughout the duration of their relationship, it was alleged that J.B. would assault L.D. on a weekly basis whenever they got into an argument. The complainant alleged that J.B. engaged in acts such as pulling her hair, twisting her arm and making gestures toward her with an open hand causing her to believe that he would assault her. Between the dates of November 4, 2019, and July 26, 2023, L.D. claimed that J.B. escalated his controlling behavior after she gave birth to their child. She testified at trial that he would not permit her to leave the apartment with the exception of medical appointments. According to L.D. when she would make any attempts to leave the apartment, either by her self or with their child, J.B. would stand between her and the front door of the apartment, wrap one arm around her in an embrace and squeeze her to the point it would cause the her pain. J.B. would also allegedly engage in extreme behaviors such as stabbing their child’s toys with scissors as a form of discipline whenever their child would misbehave and throwing objects throughout their apartment. Both L.D. and J.B. testified at trial. L.D. was cross-examined at length by Michael Bury. It became clear that her version events made no sense as she had several family members in the GTA had she chosen to move out as well as a relative who was a family lawyer who could have assisted her with any custody issues as her greatest fear was that she would somehow lose access to their child. J.B. testified in a straightforward manner and his evidence was left unchallenged by the Crown. Ultimately, the trial judge had serious concerns about L.D.’s credibility as she repeatedly attempted to “bad mouth” J.B. throughout the trial in response to simple questions asked by the Defence in cross-examination. As a result, J.B. was found not guilty on all domestic abuse allegations.
Client found not guilty of 5 counts of sexual assault, and 1 count of break and enter into dwelling following a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. S.H. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. S.H. and C.H. began a dating relationship in November 2019 and ended December 2022. S.H. was 21 years old at the time and the complainant was 48 years old. S.H. would work the night shift and stay awake all night while the complainant would go to bed. The complainant would take sleeping pills to help her sleep. The pills were over the counter and would allow her to sleep through the night. C.H. would take the sleeping pills aspart of her nightly routine and go to bed. She would sleep on herstomach but was allegedly awoken to the blanket being pulled off with S.H. naked on top of her on four separate occasions. C.H. testified that S.H. would have intercourse with her even though she claimed that she did not consent. At some point, the relationship ended and S.H. met a new partner. C.H. repeatedly tried to “warn” the new partner about S.H. Additionally, C.H. decided to report the matter to the police after considerable time had passed following her break-up with S.H. At trial, the main issue was both credibility and reliability. S.H. testified in a straightforward manner. Michael Bury cross-examined the complainant at length about the absence of details regarding the allegations and her displeasure about S.H. moving on to a new relationship. Her reliability as a witness was successfully challenged leading the trial judge to find S.H. not guilty of all sex assault charges.
Charges of Assault, Assault Choking, Forcible Confinement and Mischief Under $5,000.00 withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial, Toronto. F.L. had been dating the complainant for about a year. F.L. agreed for the complainant to move in with him. The day after she moved in, and during unpacking and setting up the apartment, the two got into a heated argument and F.L. told the complainant to leave and that he did not want to live with her. The complainant slapped and kicked F.L. and the two got into a struggle. F.L. was able to push the complainant off and he left the apartment to cool off. While having a coffee, he got a call from police and for him to return to the apartment to be charged. F.L. was charged and retained Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges. The statement of the complainant was a rather incoherent outline of what she alleged for the assault allegations including the mischief charges. She of course told the police nothing about hitting F.L. first. F.L. was alleged to have punched “big” holes in the walls of the apartment as part of the altercation. Upon arrest, there were no injuries or marks to F.L.’s hands but he did sustain redness and scratching to his facial area. Prior to trial, discussions took place between the Crown and Joseph Neuberger regarding the deficiencies in the complainant’s statement and the complainant not wanting to attend trial. An agreement was reached for F.L. to sign a common law peace bond. After signing the common law peace bond, all charges of domestic assault were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. M.A. had attended with his truck a cement loading company and entered an office of the operator. M.A. overhead racial comments that disturbed him and he confronted the female operator. After about 11 minutes, he left the operator’s office and continued to load his truck. He thought about the exchange and later in the day sent a friendly text to the operator to de-escalate the matter as he had to attend that location everyday for as part of his job. However, after a day or two he became increasingly upset and spoke to the HR department of his company. Two days later he discovered he was being accused of sexual assault. He was charged by police and had to obtain new employment. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend Mr. M.A. The complainant alleged a ten-minute sexual assault that in many ways seemed physically not possible, and highly risky. The complainant stated that no other person came to her office during the alleged sexual assault and that she was on the phone with a family member for five minutes of the sexual assault that did not deter him. There were many other details of the allegations. Jospeh Neuberger subpoenaed the dash cam video recordings from his client’s truck and another employee who had attended the same location and office during the time frame of the allegations that required careful cross-examination to expose as false. The dash cam videos were provided to the Crown three weeks before trial. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, carefully got the complainant to commit to details of her story that were directly contradicted by the dash cam videos and then launched into a long cross-examination while playing the videos in court. The complainant became increasingly hostile during cross-examination. For example, the dash cam videos demonstrated that about four minutes into the alleged sexual assault, another truck driver entered her office and was in the office for no less than a minute. This was directly contradictory to her statement to police and her evidence at trial. The complainant claimed she forgot about this party. This made no sense as he gave a statement about 72 hours after the alleged event. More importantly, additional videos showed that the complainant had to pay careful attention to this other driver operating his truck to move into position to be loaded. The complainant had to take several steps with the computer system to start the loading process and stop the loading process, again undermining her evidence including that M.A. had confined her forcefully to her chair. Further, Jospeh Neuberger cross-examined on the mechanics of the alleged sexual assault and several aspects were highly implausible if not impossible. Joseph Neuberger filed written closing submissions, and the Court found the complainant not believable, accepted the evidence of M.A. and found him not guilty of sexual assault. * This was another case that after detailed cross-examination, it became obvious that the complainant had a motive to fabricate a false allegation to avoid an adverse employment complaint. However, if not for the dash cam videos, M.A. would still likely have been found not guilty but would not have had objective evidence to establish objective evidence of fabrication. This is a caution as to how easy it is for a false allegation to be made. But how it is important to spend considerable time building the defence to establish the client’s innocence.
Directed verdict of not guilty entered after two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. P.H.L. attended B Boss bar with friends. During the evening, he was partnered with a young lady who he met a week before at the same bar. The two played drinking games with their friends and eventually the young lady became intoxicated. She was offered to go home with one or more of her friends, but she refused. She left with P.H.L. and no one provided P.H.L. with her home address. P.H.L. took her to his apartment and after an hour she provided her address by typing in to his Uber app. While at her apartment, the two engaged in intimate contact. While leaving, P.H.L. encountered the landlord where the young lady was staying and later learned that the landlord wanted to evict the young lady for having a guest over. Shortly after leaving, the young lady became increasingly angry at P.H.L. and blamed him for the eviction and began messaging P.H.L. about her situation. She eventually had to leave the apartment about eight weeks later. She then attended police and charged P.H.L. with three counts of sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charges. Joseph had Diana Davison assist with the defence. The complainant turned over to police selected WeChat messages but did not disclose other communications. Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from the client, the Uber receipts and money transfers P.H.L. made over the morning hours to the complainant. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on several important issues, but in particular the messaging that had occurred from the time P.H.L. had left her apartment during which she expressed her anger at him for the eviction, blaming him, and her accusations that he took advantage of her. Joseph Neuberger eventually obtained admissions from the complainant that she had been messaging for about two hours with P.H.L. during which time he also sent funds to appease the landlord and to calm down the complainant. She admitted that she did not provide any of the earlier messages to the police. Further, she was unwilling to admit how P.H.L. obtained her address if not from her and how the complainant obtained his WeChat information. Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to suggest that the complainant had manufactured a witness to help her with the issue of her address. That fact demonstrated to the Court, that the complainant was not being truthful. The complainant had tried to manipulate the trial evidence to suggest her friends gave him the address, but he ignored it or changed it in the Uber app to scheme to bring her to his home. However, in cross-examination it came out that in fact her friends had asked her to go with them home, and the complainant refused. No one provided P.H.L. with her home address. P.H.L. had in fact took her in an uber hoping to get her address but instead she just came to his apartment. Later she gave the address and invited him over. This was in complete contrast to her initial statement to police and testimony. There was detailed cross-examination also on her capacity to consent as she claimed she was essentially catatonic for the sexual assaults. Capacity to consent was a main issue given she had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. However, consumption alone does not mean that she could not consent to sexual activity. In cross-examination, it was established contrary to her statement to police, that she was walking, talking, and making conscious decisions. Thus, at the end of a lengthy and detailed cross-examination, the Crown conceded that P.H.L. should be found not guilty of the three charges of sex assault.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. M.A. had known the complainant for several years. They developed a friendship, but it never materialized into a relationship. The two became estranged but reconnected in January of 2022. During a five-day period, the two met each other every day. One night, the complainant came over for dinner and drinks. The two were intimate but parted the next morning in an awkward unpleasant manner. The two began to speak about the evening and over time the complainant alleged that she was too drunk to have consented to sex and nine months later, she attended the police, and a charge of sexual assault was laid. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. Joseph Neuberger recovered from the client’s phone over 200 messages spanning about two years of their friendship as well as photographs. A 276/278 Application was brough to seek to admit most of the messages, photos, a partial recording, and sexual activity evidence. The Application was successful. The main pillar of the complainant’s evidence was that she was either drugged by M.A. or forced to drink too much alcohol that she could not have consented to the sexual activity. In addition, the complainant alleged in her video statement to police that she did not really know M.A. well and that they rarely got together. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, extensively cross-examined the complainant and methodically went through the messages, pictures and recording to demonstrate that the complainant was distancing herself from M.A. to make it appear she would not consent, when in fact that messages and images demonstrated a three to four year close friendship with numerous activities together including Latin dancing, dinners and helping her mother with purchasing investment property. Continued cross-examination demonstrated that the complainant took no responsibility for her own actions on the night in question including that that it was her who initiated all contact for the week leading up to the dinner. It was in fact her who suggested dinner and to come to M.A.’s home. Further there was no evidence or opportunity for any drug to have been used and more importantly, M.A. did not force the complainant to drink any alcohol. In cross-examination, the complainant after continued pressing on the issue, admitted that she drank alcohol voluntarily and did so because she was having a nice evening. The alcohol consumed was a normal amount for her. Cross-examination demonstrated a number of material inconsistencies and falsities in the complainant’s evidence. M.A. testified and did so in a coherent believable manner. After the evidence was completed, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written closing submissions that were filed with the court. The Court concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the sex assault allegation and M.A. was found not guilty.
Charge of Domestic Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with a Weapon and Threaten Death withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown assigned to the file. Z.Z. and his wife were having martial issues. They married very young and were starting out on their careers. Over the pandemic, their relationship became strained and in 2024 the relationship became much more challenging. An argument erupted after Z.Z. made comments about the state of their marriage and the argument escalated to a struggle with a considerable level of violence. Both parties sustained injuries. The complainant called 911 and Z.Z. was charged with multiple domestic abuse allegations. Z.Z. was very regretful for his conduct and how their argument got out of control. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello defended Z.Z. He was sent to a very experienced therapist for assessment and counselling. Z.Z. completed over 22 hours of assessment and counselling and then with the assistance of the Crown, the bail was varied to allow the parties to have martial counseling. The complainant also retained counsel who communicated her desire to reconcile. Z.Z. also completed community service and a reflection paper on the harms of intimate partner violence. Z.Z. and his wife completed 10 hours of joint martial counseling. The Crown assigned took a very restorative approach as Z.Z. took responsibility for his actions and made excellent progress in counseling. A package was provided to the Crown that also included background information, confirmation of employment and the impact of a finding of guilt and an immigration opinion was obtained also in relation to the impact of a finding of guilt and possible jail. In the end, all charges of assault, assault with a weapon, assault bodily harm and threatening were withdrawn, and the client signed a common law peace bond with appropriate terms.
After a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, a directed verdict of not guilty was granted after cross-examination of the complainant was completed. The charges of Assault x 3, Choking x 3, Forcible Confinement x 2, and Threatening Death x 2 were dismissed. J.X. had a two and half year tumultuous relationship with his girlfriend. In May of 2022 he attempted to end the relationship because it was too toxic. The complainant would not relent and refused to end the relationship. Over a short period of time, J.X. reluctantly agreed to continue the relationship. He agreed for her to move into his apartment. After about a month of living together, the complainant became violent and would get very angry at small issues. Both J.X. and the complainant had difficulty regulating their anger and de-escalating disagreements. Unfortunately, many arguments led to physical violence. In November of 2022, J.W., after a brief argument, told the complainant to leave his apartment and served her with an eviction notice. The complainant left to a nearby Starbucks, called police and alleged a brutal assault including choking and prolong beating. J.X. was charged with multiple domestic violence offences including historical allegations. The complainant provided to police some pictures of injuries. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend J.X. Daisy Zhang, senior paralegal was assigned to assist. The defence investigation included taking Mr. J.X.’s laptop computer to a forensic tech expert to extract deleted WeChat messages, and pictures of injuries J.X. sustained. The extraction report, original and translated messages and the photos of injuries were provided to the Crown through defence disclosure. The extraction report demonstrated that someone on November 22nd, 2022, the day the complainant called police, had deleted vast amounts of data from J.X.’s computer. The matter proceeded to trial. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on several areas including her lack of injuries on November 22nd despite the brutal assault she alleged; the messages of the break-up attempt that clearly demonstrated that the complainant was highly volatile, aggressive, and abusive and the photos of the J.X.’s injuries. Cross-examination crossed into other areas including the deletion of J.X.’s data from his laptop. The complainant reluctantly admitted in cross that she access his computer and deleted data thereby committing a criminal offence of mischief to data. It was clear that she sought to delete all incriminating evidence of her own abusive conduct. Cross-examination ultimately uncovered that the complainant was verbally and physically violent for which J.X. defended himself against. Abuse of male partners is real. The complainant was unphased at being caught in obvious false evidence and untruths. The Crown took a very fair and judicious approach and agreed that J.X. must be found not guilty.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was charged with domestic assault and retained Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. The client ended his relationship with the complainant after several months of dating. The client told the complainant that she had to move out of his apartment. The complainant told the client that her family lived approximately 2 hours away from Toronto and she wanted to live in the city. She was very angry at O.U. The complainant contacted police the next day and falsely accused the client of assault. Ms. O.U. was arrested and released by police but on terms that he could not return to his apartment. The complainant refused to move out of the apartment and the client had conditions that he could not communicate or be in contact with the complainant. The client was paying the rent for several months before retaining the firm. A trespass notice was issued and filed with Toronto Police by Neuberger & Partners. Ultimately, the complainant moved out of the apartment after 4 months. Ms. Condello was able to convince the Crown Attorney that the complainant misled police not only about her allegation but also about a fake witness (the witness refused to speak with police). Ms. Condello also provided the Crown with proof that the complainant caused damage to the client’s apartment during the four months she refused to vacate. The client was not required to enter into a peace bond and the charge of Assault 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.
