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 and Sexual Exploitation after lengthy trial in the Superior Court, Toronto. This was a very sad case with both the complainant and the client at very low points of their lives. The charges wear laid some years after G.N. and the complainant stopped communicating. The complainant had been seeing a therapist who in reviewing her past conduct and relationships, came to influence the complainant that she was exploited by G.N. and any sexual contact they had was thus coerced and not consensual. G.N. and the complainant had met at a time when they both were addicted to drugs and had developed an unhealthy relationship. The complainant came to believe that G.N. took advantage of her as at the time of the commencement of the relationship she was a drug-addicted 16-year-old girl who was working in the sex trade and living in a youth shelter. The two often got together for simply hang out and use drugs which were often provided by him. The complainant alleged that he used the supply of drugs to induce her to have sexual contact with him. There was an age gap as G.N. was much older than the complainant. The Crown alleged that G.N. sexually assaulted the complainant, even though at the time she consented to sexual contact with him. The Crown’s position at trial was that the complainant’s consent was vitiated within the meaning of s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code because G.N. was in a position of power over the complainant which he abused to induce her to engage in sexual activity with him. The Crown further alleged that G.N. sexually exploited the complainant within the meaning of s. 153(1) of the Code because he had sexual contact with her when she was a young person, while he was in a relationship with her that was exploitative of her. G.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The defence position at trial was that the Crown had not succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, that the complainant’s consent was not vitiated because there was a power imbalance between G.N and her, and that G.N. was not in a relationship with the complainant that was exploitative of her. The complainant had used and abused prescription drugs and then became addicted to street drugs while living in the shelter system. She tried powder cocaine first, and then crack. She became an addict, using drugs daily or almost daily, sometimes multiple times a day. She also had an alcohol problem, at times drinking daily. G.N., despite having a medical degree, had not been able to secure residency to complete the requirements of becoming a doctor. He had made several attempts and ultimately became very depressed and similarly turned to drugs to cope with his repeated failures. By the time he and the complainant met, he had no regular income, was living with his parents, and had become addicted to drugs. Following extensive preparations with the entire team at Neuberger & Partners LLP, G.N. testified at trial and it was clear that he had not exploited the complainant in any fashion nor was there any power imbalance. The complainant also testified. Crucially, in cross-examination of the complainant, it was demonstrated that she was not as reliant on the G.N. as the Crown had made her out to be. The complainant was extremely street smart. She had her own source of funds. She controlled communications with G.N. She decided when they would see each other, and she cut him off on several occasions from contact. She in fact believed at the time of their contact, that she was the one manipulating G.N. for him to drive her around Toronto, buy her things including drugs. As demonstrated in a detailed long cross-examination, if anything, she had been exploiting G.N. The age gap was about 16 years and the Crown’s argument was that the combination of age, his education, and his supply of drugs amounted to exploitation. An issue arose as to what level of intent is necessary for exploitation. Did is simply arise from the set of facts or was an intent needed to act upon the factors to “exploit” the other person. Ultimately, the trial judge found that a level of intent was necessary to exploit another person, and in the circumstances of this case, there was insufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that G.N. had exploited the complainant. The trial judge noted a number of serious credibility issues with the complainant’s evidence and thus G.N. was found not guilty of Sex Assault and Exploitation.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after four-day trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. M.M. attended late on a Friday night his cousin’s home. Many of his family members lived there and there was a tenant in the basement who he met when he arrived. She started talking to him and learned a lot about his relationship with the family that owned the home; that they ran their own trucking business, and he was from a nearby town where both M.M. and the tenant was from. They decided to chat and drink some alcoholic drinks. Over two and half hours, they became a bit intoxicated and were playing games on his phone and having fun. Eventually, the two wound up in a bedroom and were play wresting. Eventually they went to her bedroom, and they had sexual intimacy. They fell asleep after and a few hours later, he woke up and they started to talk about him seeing her again that weekend. M.M. told her that he was married. She freaked out and started accusing him of lying to her and taking advantage of her. He apologized and left. A few hours later, she called police, and he was charged with sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to defend the sex assault charge. Diana Davison was part of the defence team. At trial, the complainant was cross-examined on the sequence of events. The complaint significantly downplayed any interest in M.M. and even denied that she enjoyed talking to him, despite sitting and talking with him for over two hours. The complainant alleged that H.H. had held her down and forcibly removed her hoodie, top, and other clothing items while he continued to hold her with considerable force pinning her to the bed. After forced sex, he was alleged to have held her tight, keeping control of her cell phone, and only released her when he woke up at 7:30 a.m. Cross-examination focused on the mechanics of the activity including the removal of the clothing, sequence of other events including my client leaving the room to get her medication for a headache, and how she knew the time when they woke up. Cross-examination yielded several material inconsistencies and admissions, including that she knew the time because her cell phone was placed beside her on the bed and when she woke up she looked at her phone to know the time. Thus, there were several admissions that seriously undermined her credibility. Further, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the defence narrative including that the complainant was very familiar with a concept in India of rape by deception, and that she felt deceived by M.M. because he said nothing about being married until the morning. The client testified and gave a detailed account of the events of the night including about consent. Joseph Neuberger provided written submissions to the court in addition to oral submissions to ensure that all issues were properly covered. The Court found that there was a credible motive to fabricate, and M.M. was found not guilty of sex assault and forcible confinement.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Forcible Confinement, Assault x 4, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, and Threaten Death, withdrawn after a successful 276/278 Application, prior to the commencement of evidence at trial. C.T. had been common law with the complainant for several years and the two had a child together. Unfortunately, the relationship soured, and a bitter custody battle ensued. The complainant, engaged in some concerned behaviour and eventually CAS intervened and C.T. was granted primary care over their child. The two tried reconciling and therapy. During a week when the complainant stayed with C.T. at his grandmother’s home, the two discussed reconciliation and moving into a home together. However, several arguments erupted and C.T. asked the complainant to leave. The complainant did not leave and started to break items in the home. She called police after C.T. said he would call police. Police arrived and took the complainant to the police station for a video recorded statement. C.T. was charged with multiple domestic abuse allegations including sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend C.T. Jospeh Neuberger and Diana Davison spent hours gathering messages, video footage and other documents to piece together a historical review of the complainant’s conduct to undermine her credibility, and fortunately, C.T. had video recorded the last 10 minute of the complainant’s activities in the home prior to her calling police. Eventually, Jospeh Neuberger drafted a very detailed 276/278 Application as any records and sexual history evidence must be screened by the Court prior to being capable of admission at trial. The Application Record was drafted with a full outline of the defence including a detailed Affidavit of C.T. A clear motive was disclosed that included family law documents filed by the complainant days after the charges were laid seeking sole custody of their daughter. The Application to admit messages, documents, pictures, video footage and sexual history evidence was vigorously opposed by the Crown and counsel for the complainant. However, the Application was granted with 90% of the material being admitted for cross-examination and testimony at trial. A new Crown was assigned and immediately discussions ensued about reasonable prospect of conviction, including the motive to fabricate. After extensive discussions, C.T. signed a common law peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault, Assault with Choking withdrawn prior to setting trial dates. The client, a condominium security guard, was charged with assaulting and choking a trespasser who had parked illegally in the condominium parking lot. While the trespasser had no right to park there, the police took the position that the security guard used more force than was necessary and charged him accordingly. D.S. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him as any finding of guilt could result in the loss of his security guard licence and put his career in serious jeopardy. Michael Bury spent considerable time negotiating with the Crown’s Office to arrive at an outcome which would not put the client’s career at risk. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charges given the client’s situation if he completed some upfront counselling. Arrangements were made for this counselling which the client completed successfully. All the charges were then withdrawn upon the client’s confirmation of counselling and entering into a 12-month peace bond which did not result in any criminal record. As a result, the client was able to continue with his employment and his security guard licence was not impacted in any way.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault Withdrawn on Day one of Trial. The client was charged with a serious sexual assault and assault involving a next-door neighbour on two separate occasions. The neighbour reported to the Police that the client had invited her into his apartment, and then, while intoxicated, touched her breasts and bottom inside her clothing on the pretense of searching for drugs she had allegedly stolen from him. The Crown was seeking jail in the event of conviction. B.G. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. After a lengthy investigation into the complainant’s background, it became very clear that she had serious credibility and reliability issue both due to a criminal record involving drugs and impaired driving. Additionally, Michael Bury found out she had new impaired driving charges still before the courts and was a known drug user in the building. Given these serious witness problems, Michael Bury convinced the Crown that its case was extremely weak and the chances of success for the Crown were slim to none. The Crown agreed and withdrew all charges the morning of the trial.
Charges of Uttering Threats to Cause Death, Failure to Comply (x3); Client found Not Guilty following a 4-day trial, Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with making death threats against his former wife by allegedly gesturing a throat cutting motion on his neck to her during a child access exchange, as well as breaching his release conditions by communicating with her in this manner. Both he and the wife were going through an acrimonious divorce involving over a dozen false allegations made by the wife against him to improve her position in a child custody battle. A.M. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Working with the client’s family lawyer, Michael Bury gathered extensive information from the family law proceedings which were used at the criminal trial to undermine the wife’s credibility. The wife was cross-examined at length and ultimately agreed that she had made repeated allegations against the client which had not resulted in any charges. She also admitted that this was a high conflict divorce involving the children and other family members. Ultimately, the trial judge found several problems with her evidence following Michael Bury’s cross-examination and submissions which resulted in the decision to find the client not guilty.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after four-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Ottawa. This was a retrial. N.P. was originally found guilty of sexual assault and found not guilty of assault at this first trial. A successful appeal overturned the conviction and sent the matter back for a retrial on the sexual assault charge. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained to act as counsel on the retrial for N.P. After reviewing the extensive trial transcripts and the statements of the complainant, a 276/278 Application was drafted and filed in relation to messages we sought to cross the complainant on and certain other sexual activity. The Application was successful. Joseph Neuberger also brought an application to exclude bad character evidence that the Crown sought to introduce through the complainant and two disclosure witnesses. The defence motion to exclude the bad character evidence was successful. We sought to limit the admissible evidence to a few days before and after the alleged assault and nothing more as it was in our view irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The alleged sexual assault took place during the early months of N.P. and the complainant’s relationship. However, the relationship continued for a year and half and when the two broke up, the allegation was then made to police. Thus, the allegation was a historical sexual assault. But the reason for the breakup of the relationship and other related potential evidence was fraught with eliciting bad character evidence that was prejudicial. Further, the motive to fabricate was formulated at the time of the alleged sexual assault. Thus, any examination or cross-examination of the months following the alleged sex assault was unnecessary and prejudicial. During the retrial, there was extensive cross-examination focused on the complainant’s reliability and professed trauma induced memory loss. There was a complete lack of memory of the two hours before the alleged sexual assault. The two-hour period was significant to the unfolding of events including other sexual activity that led to N.P. and the complainant moving into the bedroom. The evening was about the couple breaking up and the complainant stated that she would never consent if they were breaking up. However, there was a complete lack of memory of the two hours preceding including their discussions, kissing, hugging and other activities. Further, during the time in the bedroom, the complainant in cross-examination again lacked details to the activities and made concessions about how the two were interacting including having a loving and affirming conversation as well as engaging in passionate kissing and touching, details that she failed to disclose in her statement to police and during her in-chief examination. Cross-examination elicited significant details about their sexual interactions and lack of detail on crucial issues about the mechanics of what the complainant described as a violent rape. The complainant at the end of cross-examination was very unreliable and had significant credibility issues. The accused testified and his evidence in and of itself raised a reasonable doubt. As such, N.P. was found not guilty of sex assault.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference dismissed following four-day Superior Court trial, Toronto. D.A. was charged with three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference. The offences were alleged to have been committed against C.G., the complainant, in the spring and summer of 2011 when the complainant was 10 years old, and D.A. was in his late 30s. Much of the Crown case respecting the alleged offences was placed in evidence through a videotaped statement to the police given by C.G. on September 7, 2016, almost five years after the events of 2011, but shortly after her first reporting of her allegations to her mother. C.G. described three settings during the 2011 visits in which D.A. touched her in a sexual manner. At his first trial, D.A. did not testify based on the advice of other counsel and was found guilty by a jury. D.A. retained Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him on an appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following the successful appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP represented D.A. on the second trial at which D.A. did testify at length. Following this contested trial which included an extensive cross-examination of the complainant, the trial judge found the accused not guilty on the basis that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt despite the evidence of the complainant which the judge found to be credible. The comprehensive cross-examination of the complainant, together with the extensive preparation of D.A. resulted in a situation where the judge had sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit DA and find him not guilty as charged.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a 5-day trial at the Superior Court of Justice, Barrie. The Complainant stated that she was visiting a family campground where her and her family have multiple long-term trailers. She stated that she attended a party one night where everyone was consuming alcohol. As the night progressed, she became visibly intoxicated. She alleged that she had consumed almost ten beers, five vodka shots, and smoked 7 grams of marijuana through out the day and night. She later stated that she left with her sister to go back to her trailer to sleep. However, she allegedly consumed sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety medication before sleeping. She claimed that the combination of all the intoxicants in her system left her incapacitated. However, while sleeping during the night, she claimed that she heard a male’s voice saying, “What would people say?” She alleged that she remembered being sexually assaulted by someone. It was only next morning when she woke up that she saw her uncle, D.J., in bed next to her. She claimed that she had no memory of what had occurred but believed that D.J. sexually assaulted her. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charge. Yuvika Johri cross examined the complainant for two days and was able to establish significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant to the police with her in-court testimony. The Complainant also added several details to her in court testimony that were missing from her police statement. The Complainant’s mother testified in court and denied ever having asked D.J. for money for Complainant’s therapy. Yuvika Johri was able to impeach her testimony with messages which showed that she had indeed asked D.J. to pay for the Complainant’s therapy much in advance of D.J. getting arrested and threatened him with bodily harm. Yuvika Johri also cross examined the Complainant’s sister and established discrepancy between her statement and testimony in court. After a five-day trial, D.J. was found not guilty of sexual assault as there were concerns that the Complainant’s evidence may have been a product of her conversations with others.
Four counts of sexual assault, three counts of simple assault, one count of criminal harassment, one count of utter threats, and one count of assault choking withdrawn prior to trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The Complainant alleged that she was in a relationship with H.S.C. since 2019. She alleged that H.S.C sexually assaulted her in a violent manner on their first date. She alleged that he assaulted her in her car by sitting on top of her, biting her lips, and making them bleed. She claimed that she tried to open the car door but H.S.C. allegedly didn’t let her leave his car. He allegedly licked the blood off of her lips while trying to recline her seat to penetrate her. She claimed that the accused digitally penetrated her vagina and then continued to do so with his penis. The Complainant went on to describe in her police statement that sometime in September 2021, she learned that she was pregnant with H.S.C’s child. She claimed that H.S.C. took her on a vacation. During the vacation, she alleged that H.S.C was not happy about her pregnancy and allegedly blamed her for cheating on him. As a result, she claimed that H.S.C. beat her up in the woods all over her body. She claimed that he beat her so much that she lost her pregnancy and that H.S.C. did not allow her to return home or see a doctor for a few days as he was allegedly worried that she may report him. She advised that during their relationship, H.S.C. repeatedly raped her anally and stalked her. She also alleged that after she tried to break things off from him in 2022, H.S.C. allegedly followed her and her son from time to time. Lastly, she claimed that she met H.S.C once post breakup to as it was his birthday, however, H.S.C. allegedly screamed at her and threatened to kill her. She claimed that H.S.C. punched her, choked her, and pulled her hair. As a result of the allegations, H.S.C. was charged with Four counts of sexual assault, three counts of simple assault, one count of criminal harassment, one count of utter threats, and one count of assault choking. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charges. A 500-page comprehensive s. 276/278 application was prepared by Yuvika Johri. Text messages, WhatsApp messages, video, audio recordings, and H.S.C’s google timeline were provided in the application to rebut the Complainant’s allegations. The messages showed a different version of the relationship and showed that the Complainant had intentionally lied about the allegations. Google timelines were provided to show that H.S.C. and the Complainant returned home from their vacation next day unlike how the Complainant had alleged. Text messages were also used to show that the Complainant was never pregnant as alleged. Audio recordings were provided to show that the Complainant was dealing with jealousy issues and repeatedly accused H.S.C. of cheating on her. Video recording also showed the Complainant’s behaviour towards H.S.C on the day of their breakup which was contrary to her allegations. All charges were withdrawn against H.S.C. for no reasonable prospect of conviction prior to trial.
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.
