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 acquitted of 10 counts of Voyeurism at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.V. was an employee of a large corporation- Corporation A. He was alleged to have installed a camera hidden in the tiles of the lady’s washroom at his workplace. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend him on the charges. According to the disclosure, the camera was located by the contractors who were renovating the women’s washroom. A hole was drilled in the wall through the men’s washroom and secured with a metal plate and cardboard. The management was informed of this situation, and the H.R. representative of the company removed the S.D. card from the camera and locked the washrooms. Apart management and the individuals who found the camera, no one else knew about the camera being found in the lady’s washroom. The camera was left in place and the police were not called at this time. The H.R. representative reviewed the S.D. camera and discovered videos which identified female staff using the washroom. The police were not called at this time either and the H.R. representative kept the S.D. card in her possession for the rest of the day. When the staff returned to work the next day, the camera had mysteriously been removed from the washroom, but no one knew who removed it. The police were called thereafter. Police found several fingerprints on the metal plate that was used to secure the camera in the wall but could not identify the individual responsible for the offence.
After a year and a half, the investigating officer received a phone call from the H.R. Director of the corporation informing him that a complaint had been made against an employee of the corporation by a client. The client was another corporation- Corporation B who informed the H.R. Director that a female staff was changing into her uniform when she found A.V.’s cellphone recording her. A.V. was tasked to visit corporation B as part of his job duties. It was alleged that the cellphone was kept on the floor, angled up, with the recording function switched on. A.V. was not arrested for this offence at this time, however, he was arrested for what had allegedly taken place at corporation A more than a year ago. Yuvika Johri brought a charter application to stay the proceedings and exclude evidence against A.V. Defence also brought an alternative suspect application. Defence argued that the officer in charge had no reasonable probable grounds to arrest A.V. based off of what happened at the client’s location and linking him as the perpetrator who committed the offence more than a year ago at corporation A. Defence also argued that the offence was committed by another individual at Corporation A and not A.V. A week before the trial, defence was notified that a large amount of disclosure from the S.D. card were not provided to the defence or the crown in this matter by the officer in charge. After a lot of negotiation, an acquittal was entered against A.V. for all 10 counts of voyeurism and A.V. entered a common law peace bond. While A.V. was being prosecuted for the 10 counts of voyeurism, he was arrested for one count of voyeurism for the events that allegedly took place at corporation B. After negotiation with the crown’s office, Yuvika Johri got this charge withdrawn as well.
Neuberger & Partners successfully brings Disclosure Motion under Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Crown disclosure in an Over 80 case is insufficient.
Past results do not guarantee success in any particular case.
