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
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.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Assault Choking, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault, Forcible Confinement, Mischief Under and Threaten Death, all withdrawn on the first day of trial, Oshawa. A.F.S. was living at home with his spouse during the initial stages of their separation. A.F.S. rejected overtures to reconcile and moved forward with divorce. His wife went to police and complained of intimate partner abuse including sexual abuse both current and historical in nature. A.F.S. retained Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure and obtained from the client a fairly extensive history of messaging between him and the complainant over the last twelve months of the relationship demonstrating that A.S.F. was distancing himself from contact and communication with the complainant; was nothing but polite and but was firm in his rejection of requests to reconcile and to have intimate time together. It was clear the complainant was pursuing A.S.F., and the complainant was expressing her frustration and rejection. Just after the complainant went to police, the complainant disclosed to the police an email she allegedly sent to A.S.F. dated the day prior to her statement to police, telling A.S.F. that he could not sexually assault her. Joseph Neuberger was convinced this email was constructed to provide some confirmation of her allegation and prior disclosure. Jospeh Neuberger asked for the complainant’s phone to be secured for disclosure of the meta data of the email. The complainant refused and no disclosure was provided of the meta data to establish when the email was created. Further, Joseph Neuberger, brought a 276/278 Application to admit “other sexual” history evidence and all the records – the messages between the complainant and A.S.F. The Application was successful and on the first day of trial, the complainant would not attend court for trial. As such, the charges were withdrawn.
D.S. was charged with two counts of Assault and one count of Utter Threat out of Newmarket courthouse. D.S. has been married to the complainant for almost 15 years. The two had children together. D.S. and the complainant were going through turbulent times in their marriage and the complainant had cheated on D.S. with D.S.’s friend. This resulted in more arguments between D.S. and the complainant. At some point D.S. wanted to hug the complainant against her will. This was recorded by the complainant. It was also alleged that the accused pushed the complainant on another occasion and told her that he was going to “have her dead”. D.S. retained Mariya Protsenko to defend his criminal charges. Mariya requested the client provide their text message history between D.S. and the complainant. Mariya carefully reviewed disclosure and had the client attend counseling. At the pre-trial, Mariya presented to the assigned Crown Attorney a series of text messages that contradicted the complainant’s utter threat allegations. Even though one of the assault allegations was recorded, Mariya was able to convince the assigned Crown Attorney to withdraw once D.S. entered into a peace bond. Thus, the Crown withdrew the Domestic Assault charge and the Utter Threat charge.
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.
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.
