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 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.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Oshawa. It was alleged that S.B. slapped and scratched his wife during an argument the two of them had. The wife called the police and S.B. was arrested. S.B. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. Tyler reviewed the disclosure and conducted multiple pre-trials with the assigned Crown. Tyler provided extensive background information on S.B.’s relationship with his wife and S.B.’s personal circumstances. Tyler encouraged the Crown not to take a position and suggested that S.B. attend 16 sessions of private therapy, with a report detailing his progress to be provided, and complete 20 hours of community service, following which they would revisit their positions. Upon completion of these steps and a very positive therapy report, the Crown agreed to have S.B. enter into a peace bond and his charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault with Choking; Acquittal at request of Crown following four-day trial, London. D.P. was accused of a sexual assault with choking involving a woman he had just met a house party. While at the party, the accused allegedly approached the complainant and initiated a conversation with her. After a short conversation of only a few minutes, the accused, according to the complainant, her that he was attracted to her and that he had his car parked outside. They then left the house and went to his parked car a short distance away. Both then entered the back seat of the parked car where they began kissing. The accused allegedly then grabbed the complainant by her neck and repeatedly choked her. After this, the accused was alleged to have laid the complainant on her back, removed her pants and underwear, and fondled her repeatedly. Shorty thereafter, the accused was then accused of having had repeated non-consensual intercourse with her. D.P. retained Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. The case was a classic “he says, she says” case with no other witnesses for the Crown. There was no dispute that sexual intercourse had taken place. D.P.’s position was that the intercourse, and any other sexual activity, were entirely consensual. D.P. denied any repeated choking. Michael Bury and Tyler Alviano prepared a comprehensive cross-examination which clearly demonstrated significant inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s evidence. Additionally, extensive hours were spent with D.P. preparing his examination-in-chief with him and creating the Defence strategy. Following the cross-examination of the complainant by Michael Bury and the testimony of D.P., the Crown invited the Court to acquit D.P. due to the now obvious problems with complainant’s evidence following her cross-examination, in addition to D.P.’s consistent and reliable telling of his version of the events. The trial judge agreed and indicated that the Crown would have been facing an “up-hill” battle to convince him of D.P.’s guilt had the matter proceeded to submissions and then a review of the evidence by the trial judge to reach a verdict.
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.
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.
