Neuberger & Partners LLP named 2026 Boutique Law Firm of the Year by the Canadian Law Awards. See the award →
× HomeOur Services  About Us  Recent SuccessesTestimonialsNews & Videos  Contactفارسی中文
Contact Our Firm

R v S.J. (2024)

Book a Consultation Now

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

 

← More Recent Successes success stories

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.

Contact Our Firm