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Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant’s story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.’s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.
Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.
Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.
Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete’s request. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.
Client was charged with assault on a family member in Toronto. Matter was set down for trial. Mr. Navarrete filed various Charter applications in defence of his client. After the Crown reviewed the case and the applications, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond.
Client charged with a sexual assault at his place of employment involving a customer. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges. Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney’s Office to discuss various legal issues surrounding the charge, facts and the client’s previous exemplary life. After which, the Crown agreed to withdraw the sexual assault charge and the client entered into a peace bond.
Charges of breach of recognizance stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. On the morning of trial, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown’s case against L.D. despite the fact that the complainant was insistent on proceeding with the case. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.
Client acquitted on charges of breach of recognizance (X3) stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. During the trial, Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the complainant on her allegations and had her admit that she forgot very important and serious details. Ultimately, the presiding Judge did not find her evidence reliable or credible to warrant a conviction.
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.
