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
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.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates. The client suffered a mental health episode while in the residence of her friend and her newborn baby and there was a scuffle. Police were called and the client was brought to hospital. He was unfortunately charged with Assault. Ms. Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained. Over a period of several months, the Crown was provided with medical reports regarding the client’s diagnosis, treatment and gradual improvement. The Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charge, no Peace Bond was required.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Kitchener. J.E. had been dating the complainant for about two years. At the time of the allegation the couple had recently resumed their relationship after a brief break-up. The complainant attended J.E.’s apartment and eventually became intimate with J.E. After some time, the condom being used for anal intercourse had broken and the complainant accused J.E. of removing the condom and to cover up what he did, he cut it with scissors. At all times, the complainant made it clear that use of a condom was necessary. J.E. explained he did not remove the condom, but it had broken. The complainant called police. J.E. waited at the apartment with the complainant. He was charged with sexual assault. The prosecution case was based on “stealthing” a term used to describe deceptively removing a condom during intercourse that constitutes a sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure. The statement of the complainant was transcribed. In addition, the police photos of the client’s apartment and condo were very helpful to the defence, as the condom appeared to be oozing a whitish substance that appeared to be semen. The pictures of the condom in various states were examined by the defence expert and the separation of the condom did not support a finding of being cut with scissors or sabotaged by other means. The breakage seemed to be consistent with failure during intercourse. Further, the complainant later provided police with an email clarifying her interview that she may have consented to sexual acts including anal intercourse with a condom and only wanted J.E. charged with “stealthing”. The email demonstrated important inconsistencies with her interview. At trial, the complainant in cross-examination indicated that she did not want to attend his apartment; did not want any sexual contact and had not consented to vaginal or anal intercourse. Extensive cross-examination focused on her actions and agency in their time together. This included the complainant going to his bedroom, and on her own initiative straddling J.E. and kissing him passionately including caressing his face, head, and hair. Further cross-examination drew out from the complainant that in fact she fully engaged in sexual contact, but she adamantly stated that she never consented to vaginal and anal intercourse. However, when faced with her email to the investigating officer, she suggested that she was simply clarifying a point about what she thought he might be charged with but not that she consented to vaginal or anal intercourse. This was not inline with what she had written to the police officer. Further, in cross-examination Joseph Neuberger put the pictures of the condom to the complainant who stated that the condom was first intact, being in one piece and then she saw he had cut it into two pieces. The complainant answered that the condom in the pictures taken by the police at the apartment was not the same condom she had seen with J.E. The police evidence at trial was clear that only one used condom was found. It appeared to have semen in the condom. And that there was only one condom wrapper found torn thus demonstrating only one condom was used. The answers of the complainant about the condom depicted in the pictures may have been a product of general confusion but given her assertive answers, provided material inconsistencies in her evidence. Further, the complainant was contradicted on other key points regarding the status of their relationship. A selection of text messages exchanged between the complainant and J.E. demonstrated that the complainant was very eager to see J.E. and wanted to get married and have a family. This again was in stark contrast to her in trial testimony. J.E. testified and provided coherent and logic evidence. He was unshaken in cross-examination and strongly denied having sex without a condom and sabotaging the condom. Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written closing submissions. The Court found J.E. believable, and that there were material issues with the complainant’s evidence damaging her reliability and credibility. The inconsistencies were very significant. Accordingly, J.E. was found not guilty of Sexual Assault.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after four-day trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.K. was charged 20 years after an alleged sex assault. The complainant alleged that 20 years prior, A.K. attended her birthday party and essentially abducted her when she was sleeping and intoxicated. The complainant alleged that she knew A.K. as he was in the group of friends that she hung out with and would see each other at parties but never spent any time alone and she barely knew him. In fact, she stated that he asked her out for a date a couple of times, but she turned him down as she was not interested. Yet, he was invited to her birthday party and at the tail end of the party the complainant stated that she was sleeping on the couch, and then next thing she recalls was waking up in A.K.’s car and then passing out. She then had minor waking moments in a strange bedroom with A.K. sexually assaulting her. In the morning, she left his home, and on the way out said hi to his parents, and waked without shoes and a purse to some location where she found a pay phone. She did not report the alleged incident for 20 years. A.K. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. Diana Davison assisted with the defence. A.K. was extensively interviewed and he had a good memory of the complainant. He kept a book she bought him as a birthday gift that had an affectionate inscription in it. He advised that they had dated for about a month and a half and he stopped dating her after her birthday because of her odd behavior. He recalls the relationship and evening in question because he started dating her right after the end of a seven-year relationship to someone he thought he was going to marry. Also, he ran into the complainant a week after her birthday at a bar where she yelled at him for not calling her. Joseph Neuberger brought a section 276/278 Application to admit the book, a few pictures and sexual history evidence to cross-examine the complainant and for A.K. to testify to. The Application was eventually granted, and the book was found not to be a “record” as defined under the Criminal Code section. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the dating history and the book as evidence of the dating history. The complainant became evasive and combative trying to explain the book that she failed to mention and explain other implausible issues including how A.K. essentially kidnapped her from her 19th floor apartment in front of all her friends. Joseph Neuberger called A.K.’s mother to testify who recalled meeting the complainant on the morning in question and having a conversation with her. The evidence of the mother contradicted the complainant in several significant aspects. The defence also put in Google map arial photos to contradict the complainant’s evidence about leaving his home, and where she allegedly walked to. The residential area was very dense with homes, with no sidewalks and no plaza or other such location with a payphone that the complainant could have walked to, let alone walked to with no shoes. The court believed the evidence of A.K. and his mother and rejected portions of the complainant’s evidence based on the highly implausible nature of her allegations. Thus, A.K. was found not guilty of a historical sex assault.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, and Assault Choking withdrawn prior to pre-trial motions in the Superior Court, Toronto. S.B.L. was married in India and he commenced the process of sponsoring his wife to come to Canada. During the first year of marriage, the complainant lived in India, and he would travel to India frequently to spend time with her. They would also communicate frequently by email and over a messaging app when he was in Canada. After arriving in Canada, the complainant alleged that S.B.L. sexually assaulted her one night and choked her. S.B.L. was charged. S.B.L. was represented by two previous law firms but eventually retained Joseph Neuberger to defend him. S.B.L. had in fact sought to end the marriage when she was living in India and wanted to prevent her from coming to Canada. He explained to Joseph Neuberger that several serious issues arose after they were married that caused him to fear for his emotional and physical safety. Fortunately, S.B.L. kept all his written communications totaling well over a 1,000.00 messages and emails. After careful review, it became apparent that the complainant was unstable and making odd and threatening remarks almost immediately after they were married. The complainant was demanding sponsorship, money and kept trying to convince S.B.L. that he was mentally unwell and needed her to make him well. The messages and emails read like a bizarre movie. Joseph Neuberger drafted and filed a very detailed lengthy 276/278 Application filing over 400 messages that demonstrated a pattern of intimating and threatening behavior including S.B.L. advising her not to come to Canada. When the complainant came to Canada it was a surprise to S.B.L. as he had told her he wanted a divorce. S.B.L. wrote to the complainant to stay away from him and he rented her a hotel until she could return to India. The complainant managed to get kicked out of the hotel and S.B.L. allowed her to stay at him home provided they were in separate rooms. During the night, S.B.L. drank and then went to bed. He awoke with the complainant on top of him trying to have sex with him. He tried to push her off but was unsuccessful due to his level of intoxication. The next morning, he left the home early and the complainant threatened him if he did not return, she would call police and claim he assaulted her. He nonetheless went to the police for help and when the police contacted the complainant, she made the allegations of sex assault and choking. The messages completely undermined the complainant’s evidence. After filing the messages, emails and meta data, the Crown and defence began discussions. After further investigation by the Crown and the officer in charge, the Crown conceded that the allegations are fabricated, and the charges were withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial, at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. By standers called police after an argument between a male and female became physical. The female was the male’s girlfriend. The girlfriend declined to give a statement to the police. However, the police charged M.K. based upon statements from witnesses. M.K. was in Canada on a student visa. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend M.K. A criminal conviction would have impeded the renewal of the student visa. The complainant would not cooperate with the police or Crown. Ms. Condello was successful in negotiating with the Crown to resolve the case whereby the charge would be withdrawn. The Crown could not prove lack of consent, and how the physical altercation started. Thus, the charge was withdrawn and M.K. entered into a common law peace bond.
Charge of Utter Threats withdrawn prior to trial, at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The client was a tenant in the process of moving out of a unit. On the day of the incident, the client was in the process of moving. The move took longer than expected. Around 8 pm, the client contacted the landlord asking for a few more hours to move out. The landlord agreed. The client said she would be moved out around 10 pm. At approximately 9 pm, a male entered the front door of the premises to change the locks unannounced. An argument ensued. The client asked the male to leave so she could call the landlord to confirm his identify. The male refused shoving past her into the home. The client said she would have her dog attack him. The male called police and the client was arrested. Grace Condello was retained to defend T.B. Ms. Condello was successful in convincing the Crown Attorney to resolve the case. T.B. maintained a right to protect the property as she was still in peaceful possession until the time agreed upon with the landlord. Further, the aggressive actions of the complainant were criminal acts including a physical assault. As such, the charge utter threats 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.
