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
Charge of Utter Threat withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Milton. P.H. and his neighbour had bad relations. The neighbour alleged that P.H. made racially charged comments full of hatred against him and threatened to hurt him. The utter threat was labelled as hate crime and was taken very seriously by police. In addition, the neighbour presented text messages to the police that could be interpreted to confirm the discriminatory hatred against the neighbor. P.H. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers to defend him. Mariya received disclosure and studied it carefully including the statement of neighbour. Mariya sought from the client a detailed history between him and the complainant including other messages disclosing the true nature of their disputes. Further, the client provided letters from his co-workers, friends, family members and other neighbours that contradicted the complainant’s version of events. Mariya provided defence disclosure including a proper read of the full history of messages demonstrating that the text messages could be read as not discriminatory in nature given the full context. Accordingly, the Crown Attorney withdrew the charge when the client entered into a common law peace bond.
Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Obtain Sexual Services for Consideration, withdrawn, Newmarket. Y.L. had attended an establishment for a massage and at some point, an argument broke out with staff at the spa. The staff called police and Y.L. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the charges. Y.L. insisted that he was attacked by a staff member with a knife. Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed the security camera footage from the spa. It was ultimately provided to the Crown and disclosed to the defence. It did show that Y.L. was threatened with a knife. Joseph Neuberger conducted several pre-trials but sent the client for therapy in regard to the harms of the sex trafficking industry, and about his judgement in that regard. The report was very positive. In addition, Y.L. completed 50 hours of community service. Joseph Neuberger established to the Crown that his client was acting in self-defence but the other charge of obtaining services was clearly made out. That said, a negotiated resolution for a common law peace bond was arranged given the up-front work done by the client. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn, and the client signed a common law peace bond.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. It was alleged that W.W. assaulted his girlfriend during an argument. Security guards at the apartment called the police in response to the argument. After the police met with both, W.W. was arrested. S.B. retained Tyler Alviano of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Laweyers, to defend him. Tyler extensively reviewed the disclosure and conducted multiple pre-trials with the assigned Crown, noting certain inconsistencies in the evidence. A resolution was negotiated where W.W. undertook a conflict management program and after completion the charge of Assault was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault; Charges withdrawn by the Crown. The accused was charged with a serious sexual assault involving his domestic partner. Both he and his spouse had been having arguments about their anticipated separation and possible divorce. On one occasion, the accused was alleged to have entered the bedroom where his spouse was sleeping. At this time, he repeatedly attempted to touch her in a sexual manner underneath her clothing. Despite requests by his spouse to stop, he continued his attempts to touch her without her consent until she was able to push him off of her. Shortly thereafter, the spouse contacted the police who attended at the residence and arrested the accused. Of particular concern to the police were the multiple firearms owned by the accused and stored legally on the premises. S.L. retained Michael of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Michael Bury embarked on extensive negotiations with the Crown’s Office on behalf of the accused. Ultimately, an agreement was arrived at whereby the accused would agree to forfeit his firearms in exchange for the sexual assault charges being withdrawn. Given that potential travel restrictions were a real concern, the proposed resolution was accepted by the client without any admission of liability in the event the matter were to be raised in any family law litigation.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault x 2, Assault Choking, Forcible Confinement, Threat Death, and Mischief to Data, withdrawn prior to setting dates for trial, Toronto. Y.G. and the complainant were in a lengthy relationship. The two leased an apartment together, but Y.G. did not move in. Shortly after the two broke up. Arguments ensued about the cost of the apartment lease and other issues. After not speaking for several weeks, Y.G. was arrested and charged. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend Y.G. Joseph Neuberger obtained from Y.G. an extensive source of messages between the complainant and Y.G. These messages provided a robust history of disputes including financial disputes but zero discussion about any abuse. Shockingly absent from countless messages over a long-time span. Once the body cam footage was reviewed of the not-so-great interview of the complainant and her friend (at the same time), disclosed a poor account of the alleged assaults and sexual abuse, but yielded considerable motive to fabricate over anger for the break-up and financial concerns about being “screwed” by Y.G. After several pre-trials, it was determined that the Crown did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction, and the charges were withdrawn.
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.
A.F was charged with one count of Assault out of the Toronto courthouse. A.F. had a stepdaughter staying with her and her husband. A.F. and the stepdaughter had an argument. The husband of A.F. intervened and it was alleged that A.F. scratched him. A.F. called an ambulance as she was not feeling well because of the fight. The paramedics arrived, spoke to A.F. and called the police. Police officers arrived and took statements from all the parties. As a result, they arrested A.F. for assault. A.F. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya received disclosure and drafted A.F.’s history with her husband and the stepdaughter. Mariya had a pre-trial with the assigned Crown Attorney and negotiated a resolution. The Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charge upon waiting for 6 months. The Crown Attorney allowed full contact of A.F. with her husband while A.F. waited for 6 months for her charge to be withdrawn. Once 6 months have passed, the charge of Assault 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.
