R. v. M(P.) 2013
Client was charged with Production of Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime after the Hamilton Police obtained a search warrant for his home. At the preliminary hearing defence Neuberger & Partners raised significant problems with the search warrant, including the use of smart meter data. The Crown dropped all charges after the client pleaded guilty to simple possession of marijuana and received an absolute discharge .
Client charged with production of marijuana after Toronto Police executed a search warrant at a Toronto location. Neuberger & Partners challenged the Toronto Police drug squad decision to obtain electricity consumption records about the client's home without a warrant. Neuberger & Partners argued that the client had a privacy interest in the electricity consumption data as outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Gomboc (2010). On the eve of trial the Crown withdrew all charges.
Regina v. S.N. (2012)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking stayed in Superior Court, Barrie, after a lengthy preliminary hearing and extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Federal Prosecutor. After detailed cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the alleged number of plants was far less than the estimated 300 originally put forth by the police and that there was no evidence of any commercial activity. The defence put forth evidence that the operation was solely for medicinal purposes. Hence after lengthy negotiations the charges were stayed.
R. v. J.B. (2012)
Production of Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking charges from two separate grow ops withdrawn on eve of Superior Court trial after Neuberger & Partners mounts extensive Charter challenge to validity of 3 RCMP search warrants.
Regina v. G.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking x 5, and one count of possession stayed at the preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested after the police conducted surveillance that they believed established that G.D. had been involved in a drug transaction and was in possession of cocaine. The police entered G.D.'s home just prior to the issuance of a search warrant under allegedly exigent circumstances, and when the warrant was issued began a search of the house and found 3.5 kg of cocaine, over 3.5 kg of meth, 3 kg of ecstasy, and various other substances sufficient to charge G.D. with six drug related offences and put him at risk of a jail sentence in excess of eight years if convicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent several detailed disclosure requests for all notes supporting all of the information set out in the Information to Obtain (the document used by the police to convince a justice to issue a warrant). After very careful and detailed analysis, Joseph Neuberger, was convinced that a significant portion of the information was inaccurate and as a result he drafted a very detailed application to cross-examine the Affiant on the Information to Obtain, in order to challenge the validity of the warrant and attempt to exclude all of the evidence on a breach of the client's Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish numerous deficiencies in the warrant including unsupported information, false information, and was able to raise a very strong attack on the alleged surveillance of G.D. As a result, the prosecution agreed that there were insurmountable problems with the validity of the warrant and all charges were consequently stayed.
R. v. V.(L.)
The Client was charged with conspiracy to traffic after being arrested in the Project Gladiator investigation. Neuberger & Partners, a certified specialist in criminal law, did a complete analysis of the disclosure, and gave his opinion to the Crown that the charge could not be proven even at a preliminary hearing. The Crown agreed, and withdrew the charge 4 months after the client was charged.
Regina v. N.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a controlled substance, withdrawn prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the basis of the stop and search of his client and was able to establish that there were no grounds for the search and seizure of the drugs. As a result the crown withdrew the charges.
Regina v. H.M. and H.V. (2011)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking were stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive negotiation and pre-trials with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The number of plants were approximately 200, but in accordance with the defence argument of defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sufficient defence evidence was established to demonstrate that both defendants were growing marijuana not for the purpose of trafficking but for medicinal purposes. After consultation with Joseph Neuberger, both clients were successful in obtaining their medical authorizations, and combined with issues surrounding the deficiencies in the grounds for the search warrant, Joseph Neuberger was able to negotiated that all charges were to be stayed.
Regina v. W.R.O. (2011)
Charge of conspiracy to commit the indictable offence of trafficking withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph A. Neuberger, after careful analysis of the prosecution disclosure, including intercepted text messages and emails, was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was successful in bringing an application under section 490 of the Criminal Code of Canada for the return of all seized property.
R. v. J. M. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Marijuana) and Simple Possession (marijuana) in Brampton. Client was stopped by police on a "routine HTA stop". Client was in the passenger seat and then, under intimidation, told the police what he had on him. Client was later told to contact police privately if he wanted to cooperate with police to assist them with his supplier. Mr. Navarrete had a CPT with the Federal Crown and raised various issues including the illegal search and the law of acting as an agent for police. Federal Crown agreed that this case was problematic to prosecute and decided to offer diversion despite the amount of marijuana found. Charges were ultimately withdrawn after completion of 40 hours of community service.
R. v. D.H. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Heroin), dangerous driving causing bodily harm, fail to remain at accident, and resist arrest after allegedly making a serious of drug buys observed by police which then led to a high speed chase through a suburban neighbourhood. The Crown had been seeking significant jail time in the range of 4 years given the Heroin drug charges and the conduct of driving. Mr. Navarrete was retained by D.H. After reviewing the Federal Crown disclosure, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial and a Judicial Pre-Trial and was able to demonstrate to the Federal Crown and Judge the evidentiary problems with much of the Crown's case. The Crown and the Defence agreed to a plea in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to dangerous driving for a conditional sentence and all other charges, including the drug charges involving Heroin, were withdrawn.
R. v. A.(M.) - 2010
Client's charge of possession of 1 lb of Cocaine stayed after Neuberger & Partners presses Crown on lawfulness of search of client's house.
R. v. Gomboc - 2010
John Navarrete represent Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Supreme Court of Canada in a marijuana grow-op case. Chief Justice McLachlin says in her dissenting judgment:
 The intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association ("CCLA") submits that this type of information can be used to make several intrusive predictions regarding the probable activities taking place within a home. The CCLA submits, correctly in our view, that these predictions may include whether anyone is home, the approximate time at which the occupants go to bed and wake up, and guesses as to particular appliances being used. Of course, these predictions cannot be made with certainty. However, they do have the potential to reveal private or "biographical" information, and are significantly more reliable than any predictions that can be made using the electricity-usage information collected in R. v. Plant,  3 S.C.R. 281.