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 two counts of Assault-choking, one count of utter threats, and one count of simple assault after a seven-day trial. The Complainant and R.V. were in a common law relationship with one daughter. They lived in a home that was bought by R.V. and only R.V. was on the title of the house. Sometime in January 2022, the Complainant alleged that R.V. started an argument with her over an unpaid bill. As a result of the argument, she claimed that R.V. grabbed her by her hoodie and choked her with both his hands. Sometime in May 2022, she alleged that R.V. started an argument with her over guests who were visiting them from abroad. She alleged that R.V. wanted the guests to leave as they had overstayed. She claimed that the argument had become turned physical at one time during which R.V. allegedly slapped her on her head and then grabbed her by her hoodie and started twisting it to choke her. He allegedly threatened her, I am going to kill you.” Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charges. Yuvika Johri cross examined the Complainant for two days and was able to show several inconsistencies. Yuvika Johri was also able to show that the Complainant had introduced several details during her in court testimony which were omitted from her police statement. After a seven-day trial, R.V. was found not guilty of all the charges.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Toronto. R.H.Y. was approached by a real estate agent to sell his business property and purchase a new one in a different area. The agent and R.H.Y. met at the Granite Club and then continued to meet for showings but spent many hours together privately talking about life and personal matters. R.H.Y. opened up to the complainant (agent), once after a showing of his property, that he was divorcing and going through a hard time. The two spoke for some time. The complainant sent an email that was very kind and offering to help R.H.Y. anyway she could even non-business related. The two arranged to meet the next night at his home around 6 p.m. to sign a listing extension agreement and to view his home. The complainant offered to help sell his home even though she had no experience in residential real estate. This was a personal move on the complainant’s part either to generate more business for herself or to develop a closer relationship with R.H.Y. R.H.Y. took her email, all their personal discussions, and then offer to help, as a personal interest in himself. The two met at his home and started to have wine while signing the document and having a tour of the home. The two eventually had more wine and tequila. The two sat, talked, and drank together. The complainant alleges that she “blacked out” and woke up around 2:00 a.m. the next morning in a state of distress believing something had happened to her. The complainant turned on her phone and discovered that her husband had messaged and called on numerous occasions and called police filing a missing persons report. The complainant left the home in her car and while on her drive home called her husband. They spoke on the phone. During the call, the police ordered her to stop driving as she was somewhat intoxicated, and the police located her and when located, she alleged she was drugged by R.H.Y. and likely sexually assaulted. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison were retained to defend R.H.Y. Joseph Neuberger obtained the security camera footage from the client’s residence. After reviewing the statements of the complainant, the security camera video was a crucial piece of defence evidence. Further, through the defence investigation, important messages between the complainant and R.H.Y. were obtained by Joseph Neuberger that cumulatively supported a defence narrative that the complainant, if not romantically interested in R.H.Y., was at least interested in him beyond a purely business relationship. A 276/278 motion was brought by the defence to admit the messages and the video footage. The motion was successful. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and contradicted her allegations with the forensic evidence of the lack drugs in her system (the police conducted a search of the client’s home 5 hours after the alleged incident with no results for any type of date rape drugs) and the toxicology also showed negative results for drugs. The toxicology noted high readings of alcohol in the complainant’s system, but in cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish the complainant was a social drinker with tolerance to alcohol and because of the false narrative of the complainant; the complainant failed to admit any effects of the alcohol consumed with R.H.Y. undermining her evidence of experiencing a blackout or unconsciousness. Continued cross-examination focused in a detailed manner on the voluntary steps taken by the complainant to engender a relationship with R.H.Y. and on the night in question, had full responsibility for her own actions including drinking and staying with R.H.Y. because she was enjoying his company. The complainant in cross-examination would not admit that after three alleged glasses of wine and three shots of tequila was “loosening up” and was conversational. The complainant maintained that she had no onset of any intoxication and went blank on memory with no onset any illness or other symptoms. The defence theory and motive to fabricate was put to the complainant. She was asked in detail about her interest in R.H.Y.; that she had discussed with him her own desire to divorce and that R.H.Y. was a wealthy man, going through his own divorce and that ultimately, she was attracted to R.H.Y. The complainant detailed in cross-examination that when she awoke from her “blackout” she was in his bedroom, confused and panicked. She got her clothes together and essentially ran out of the house and drove off “as fast as she could”. When the video was played for the complainant in cross-examination, the complainant refused to admit that her version of her waking up, being panicked, and leaving the home as fast as possible, was starkly different than the security video. R.H.Y. testified. His evidence was coherent, consistent, and believed. After closing submissions, the Judge found that the complainant’s version of events could not be believed even on a balance of probability and in contrast, the evidence of R.H.Y. was believable. Thus, Mr. R.H.Y. was found not guilty of sexual assault.
This case is another example of the importance of detailed defence investigation of the case; extensive preparation of the client’s defence narrative and cross-examination of the complainant to uncover a false allegation.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. It was alleged that A.S. scratched and pinched her husband during an argument the two of them had. A.S.’s sister called the police and A.S. was arrested. A.S. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend her. Tyler reviewed the disclosure and conducted multiple pre-trials with the assigned Crown. Tyler provided extensive background information on A.S.’s relationship with her husband and her personal circumstances. Tyler encouraged the Crown not to take a position yet and suggested that A.S. attend 12 sessions of private therapy, with a report detailing her progress to be provided, following which they would revisit their positions. Upon completion of these steps and a very positive therapy report, the Crown agreed to have the charges unconditionally withdrawn.
Assault with a Weapon (x2), Assault, Mischief Under, Theft Under Dismissed following three date trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. B.H. was charged with multiple counts arising from the breakdown of a common law relationship. The Complainant claimed that the Accused assaulted him with a phone charging cable and cardboard box during the course of moving out shortly after it was confirmed that he had been unfaithful and planning to move in with another woman. The Complainant also claimed that B.H. had damaged his personal property, a laptop, and stole a significant quantity of his clothing prior to the move out. There were no independent witnesses to the allegations. All the offences were alleged to have taken place in the Accused’s apartment where the Complainant had also been residing. Prior to trial, the complainant commenced Small Claims Court proceedings against the Accused in relation to the allegedly damaged and stolen property as well as a claim for personal damages. As part of this process, the Complainant served an “Offer to Settle” on B.H. which consisted of harassing allegations which bordered on extortion. B.H. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent her. Following a contested trial which included an extensive cross-examination of the Complainant on issues including his antagonistic Offer to Settle, the trial judge found B.H. not guilty on the basis that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the complainant’s credibility issues and hostility towards B.H..
Client found not guilty of historical sexual assaults involving his daughter, after three-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Toronto. F.F. was having major challenges with his daughter doing her chores, attending school, and completing school studies. F.F. came from a very traditional Latin background where discipline was very important. The complainant was spending time online and had fallen into a poor group of friends. She became belligerent and defiant. F.F. caught her online on an adult chat site that he believed she was communicating with older men. F.F. lost his cool and threatened to kick her out of the house. The complainant believed him and called 911. She alleged that when she was 6 and 7 years of age, he sexually assaulted her and had been mean to her ever since. F..F. was charged with Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend F.F. Diana Davison assisted with the defence. Joseph gathered a history of messages between the parents and the complainant as she often refused to come out of her room. Thus, they could only communicate by text. The messages confirmed the home dynamic and F.F.’s complainants about her behavior. At some point, a tech expert assisted with the defence to obtain the chat and online history of the complainant simply showing the sites that she was viewing which indeed had adult content and contact with older men. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant extensively on the challenges with her father, the messages, he online history and then broke down the alleged mechanics of the sexual assault allegations. The timing was problematic, and Joseph Neuberger was able to get the complainant to admit that in fact during the time that she said the sexual assaults occurred, the mother was home and assisting with bedtime routines and often F.F. had to assist the complainant’s brother who has autism requiring a lot of attention. The complainant also completely forgot that the family had moved homes and during the time she first alleged the sexual abuse, she in fact had been sharing a bedroom with her brother, contrary to her original statement to police. F.F. testified and was believed by the court. After submissions, the Court found Mr. F.F. not guilty of all charges.
The client was charged with Utter Death Threats x 2. The complainant alleged that the defendant made threats to have him killed. The dispute arose over commercial loans. The complainant had taken several large loans from the defendant’s Corporation for the purpose of several construction projects. The complainant also alleged that the defendant had fraudulently placed liens on 5 commercial properties and provided police with materials to support their allegation of fraud. The fraud allegation was transferred to the Police Fraud Unit. The complainant provided the Police with a witness statement to support their allegation that the complainant’s life was in danger. The Crown was seeking a jail sentence. The client retained Joseph Neuberger and Grazia Condello. After reviewing the disclosure and the Commercial litigation materials, Ms. Condello requested further disclosure, including that police interview the witness to confirm the validity of the statement. It was discovered that the complainant changed the witness statement before emailing it to the police and the statement provided to police was false. He said his conversation with the accused was not about the complainant’s life being in danger, but about the complainant having financial difficulties. Mr. Neuberger and Ms. Condello prepared a package for the Crown including Commercial litigation materials showing significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement. The complainant’s motive to fabricate was predicated on having the liens on his properties removed as he was unable to pay back the commercial loans. It was also shown the complainant interfered with the administration of justice by changing the witness’s statement. The Crown withdrew the charges on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. It was alleged that B.C. became physical with his wife during an argument. The wife called the police and B.C. was arrested. B.C. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. Despite significant delay in receiving disclosure Tyler was able to move the matter along and encouraged the Crown to resolve this matter for a peace bond once B.C. attended 16 sessions of private therapy, with a report detailing his progress. The statement of the complainant was vague as to the details leading up to the assault whereas the client was very clear in the argument and that the complainant was threatening to contact police. However, the client was content to take sessions on conflict management and the complainant wanted to reconcile. Rather than a trial, it was best to reconcile the couple. Thus, upon receipt of the report, the charge were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after four-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court, Toronto. J.E. had hired a caregiver for his children on a part-time basis. After the second day of her working with J.E., the caregiver made an allegation of sex assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the case. The allegations involved J.E. drugging the complainant, taking her to a storage room that had a bed set up in it and having sexually assaulted her. She described drinking water, then having no memory until she woke up about 45 minutes later with J.E. performing sexual acts on her. The case for the Crown revolved around two important aspects; one that she was drugged and second that she was taken to the storage room. When disclosure was received, it was notable that the toxicology report did not detect any substances other than ethanol in her urine. Similarly, there were no injuries noted. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison carefully deconstructed the statements of the complainant. In addition, the defence directed videos taken of J.E.’s house within a week of the client being charged denoting all aspects of the home to challenge several facts that the complainant gave about the home including the presence of alcohol. Extensive time was spent with the client working on his ability to testify at the trial. At trial, detailed cross-examination of the complainant elicited inconsistencies, but most importantly cross-examination on the issue of drugging, demonstrated that J.E. was in her full view and she did not consume any alcohol at his home. Further, she asked for a glass of water that was poured in front of her and then handed to her. The only time for J.E. to administer a drug into her water was about three seconds, during which the complainant still had peripheral vision of J.E. Further, the complainant experienced no onset of symptoms or effects of any drug. The complainant asserted in cross-examination that she immediately passed out and had no memory until waking up 45 minutes later. J.E. testified to a far different set of facts about when he came back to his home and conversation with the complainant which surrounded his work and other personal details that ultimately led to him being propositioned leading to consensual sexual contact. An argument occurred after consensual sex about compensation and a threat from J.E. about going to immigration. Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written closing submissions. Based upon all of the evidence, the Court concluded that the charge of Sex Assault had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and J.E. was acquitted.
Client found not guilty of multiple counts of historical sexual assault and sexual interference charges after a four-day trial, Oshawa. S.D. was in a highly acrimonious divorce from his wife who happens to be a family lawyer. About a year into the divorce proceedings, their daughter stopped all contact with S.D., and S.D. sought a number of methods to have renewed contact with his daughter, including reunification therapy. After arbitration and therapy, the daughter complainant told her Vice Principle that she did not want her father to have any details about her education because he sexually abused her. Eventually, S.D. is charged with numerous counts of sex assault and sexual interference. S.D. retained Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. After receiving disclosure, it was notable that the former wife of the client was not interviewed as part of the police investigation. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison obtained all the family court documents, which included evidence of parental alienation on the part of S.D’s former wife. The defence gathered years of photographs and videos from S.D. as he was a dedicated father and enjoyed taking photos of family trips, and his activities with his daughter, both before and after the separation from his former wife. Joseph Neuberger brought an application to have the photographs admitted at trial for cross-examination of the complainant. The motion was granted. At trial, extensive cross-examination focused on various statements the complainant made about the reasons for ending contact with her father, and then put to the complainant at least 50 photographs spanning the years of the historical allegations. During cross-examination, the complainant continued to double down on her allegations and insert new evidence and allegations. This led to further cross-examination and eventually demonstrated an alignment with the mother post separation. The complainant blamed the father for the sale of the family home, the breakdown of the marriage, and the language used underscored her alignment with her mother not only in the divorce but to remove S.D. from her life which was something the former wife of S.D. sought. S.D. was prepared for testimony at trial. Extensive time was spent with S.D. At trial S.D. testified very well and ultimately was believed by the Court. Extensive written defence submissions were filed. The Court found S.D. factually innocent of the sexual assault and sexual interference charges.
Sex Assault Charges Dismissed following four-day Superior Court trial, Toronto. The accused was charged with Sexual Interference, Sexual Assault, and Forcible Confinement. The charges all related to one Complainant who was 8 years old at the time of the allegation. The complainant and her mother were visiting relatives where the accused also resided. While not relatives, the parties were known to each other and had interacted together at other events and family gatherings. The offences were alleged to have occurred in the accused’s bedroom at the residence during a family event which was taking place downstairs at the time. The complainant testified that the accused touched her in a sexual manner including “French Kissing”, prevented her from leaving his bedroom, and touched her genitals. C.L. retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Following a 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 both purported physical evidence and evidence of the Crown witnesses including both the complainant and her mother.
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.
