← More Recent Successes success stories

Charge of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. W.A. was in a relationship with a woman who had a teenage daughter. The allegation was that W.A, his partner and her daughter were sitting in the living room and eating takeout. The daughter alleged that W.A. placed his hand on her thigh. The daughter threw the food in the air and ran out of the living room. A few days later the daughter called the police and provided a statement. W.A. was charged. W.A. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger and Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko received disclosure and did a detailed defence investigation. She found out that the complainant had previously reported a sexual assault complaint against W.A. and W.A. was charged with sexual interference a few years ago. The previous charges were withdrawn as the daughter did not want to proceed with the charges. However, in her recent statement, the daughter stated that she was told by her mother to tell the Crown Attorney that she didn’t want to proceed with the charges. As such, the Crown Attorney had full intention to proceed with the current charges. Mariya spoke to the mother of the daughter and got a full background on the daughter as well as the mother’s side of the story. It was clear that the daughter was going through some difficulties in life and was experiencing a mental health crisis. The mother had her daughter attend counseling. The mother advised that the mental health of the daughter was improved and that the daughter’s view on the events that led to the allegations changed. The mother was able to have the daughter consent to providing details on the therapy, assessment, and alternating facts of the allegations. The daughter retained her own lawyer who got in touch with Mariya. The lawyer stated that the daughter indicated that the hand on her knee by W.A. was not sexual in nature. The daughter noted that she disliked W.A. as she saw him as someone who was trying to take her late father’s place. This was motive to fabricate. The lawyer for the daughter and Mariya worked collaboratively to address the fabrication. The lawyer for the daughter wrote a letter to the Crown Attorney, met with the Crown Attorney, and had a follow up discussion with Mariya. Mariya then conducted a Judicial Pre-Trial laying out the motive to fabricate, the obvious issues with the credibility of the complainant and importantly the fact that any such touching was NOT SEXUAL in nature but simply a moment of affection toward a stepdaughter with no other surrounding evidence to suggest a sexual act. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.