Urgent Assistance
× 主页 我们的服务   关于我们   成功案例 客户反馈 新闻和录像   Contact Us English

Perjury Public Mischief Mischief To Property And Breach Of Court Orders

Book Your Free Consultation

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



Regina v. P.M. (2022)

The client had plead guilty to one count of Luring with another law firm in 2013. P.M. entered into a Section 161 Prohibition Order that prohibited him from attending a number of public places and from any contact with children. The duration of the Order was 10 years. P.M. was to have a child with his wife. P.M. retained Mariya Protsenko to vary the Prohibition Order to allow him to be with his child and to take his child to public places. Mariya drafted the Application and the client’s Affidavit. There were a number of challenges faced as P.M.’s charge pre-dated electronic system and the Judge who signed the original Order left the jurisdiction. However, Mariya was relentless and accomplished getting a hearing date for the client before the arrival of the child. After numerous corresponding e-mails with the Crown Attorney and a court appearance, Section 161 Prohibition Order was successfully varied.

R. v. J.B. (2021)

J.B. plead guilty to a charge of child pornography. J.B. had a probation order and prohibition order issued that included conditions not to be at locations where children attend such as school, park, community centre. J.B. thought to vary both orders to be able to attend extra-curricular activities with his child. J.B. hired Mariya Protsenko. Mariya drafted a Notice of Application, attached a positive report from the psychiatrist who J.B. had been seeing and got the support of the probation officer. The Crown Attorney opposed the variation. On an Application hearing, Mariya skillfully asked the questions from the probation officer, made well prepared and comprehensive submissions and addressed all the concerns of Her Honour. As a result, the variation was granted and J.B. can attend extra-curricular activities with his child.

Regina v. D.W. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Mischief Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Newmarket. The client was in a dispute with a business partner where significant funds were lost and D.W. was never informed of the sale of assets and the loss. The client lost him mind and pushed the complainant and smashed his car window. Joseph Neuberger was retained as criminal lawyer to defend the case. Joseph Neuberger disclosed the financial transaction details and correspondence which essentially amounted to a fraud. A negotiated resolution was worked out where the client took 10 hours of therapy for conflict management, and paid for the damage to the window. The charges were then withdrawn.

Regina v. J.B. (2021)

Charges of Breach of Recognizance and Assault Resist Arrest withdrawn at early stages of proceedings. J.B. had been on a peace bond and unfortunately suffered from mental health issues and comorbid substance use disorders. J.B. had consumed alcohol that caused a relapse and police had arrested J.B. and charged him with Breach and Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer and immediately obtain all related medical records, obtained an updated report from the physician and wrote the Crown that J.B. had tried endlessly to attach to a mental health social worker and community based psychiatrist during the pandemic but could not get any assistance. As a result, J.B. had been isolated and but for this one event, was doing extremely well managing his medication and sobriety without little supports. As such, the Crown immediately withdrew the charges.

R. v. R.P. (2020)

Client was charged with breach of a section 810 peace bond. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on this charge. Mr. Navarrete, with the help of the client, was able to put together various materials including GPS data of 200 metres of the complainant and the provided a package of defence evidence to the Crown. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge against the client at the courthouse in Newmarket. The charge was a fabrication.

R. v. D.G. (2020)

The client was charged with impersonating a police officer for driving an old decommissioned police cruiser. The client retained John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete put together various materials including pictures of similar vehicles on the road including campus security and ex-copper type cars. Mr. Navarrete also provided the Highway Traffic Act legislation to the Crown to show that no offence was committed under that legislation and that the client never advised anyone he was a police officer. All criminal charges were withdrawn at the courthouse in Oshawa.

Regina v. K.Z. (2020)

Charges of Impersonation, Obstruct Peace Officer, and various Highway Traffic Act charges withdrawn and pre-trial with the Crown, Newmarket. K.Z. was driving while suspended and was pulled over by police. The client misidentified himself several times before telling the officer his real name. Police charged K.Z. with multiple offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After a pre-trial with the Crown a proposal was made for the client to undertake some community service and the charges would be withdrawn. After the community service was completed, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A.J (2020)

Charge of breach of release order withdrawn by second appearance in Collingwood court. The client is charged with six counts of Sexual Assault. While awaiting the trial, the complainant alleged that A.A.J. had communicated by sending a generic greeting via OkCupid, and then alleged some communications via either text or the dating site. The client was arrested for this breach. Joseph Neuberger continued as the client’s criminal defence counsel, and a very detailed disclosure request was sent to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger asserted that there is no way for the Crown to prove this offence given the generic greeting via a dating app that there is no source information nor tracing of the actual IP address. Anyone could hack the account and send the message. There was a series of communications between Joseph Neuberger and the assigned Crown. The Crown took the position that the statement of the complainant was sufficient as well as a screen shot of the message. There were no copies of any communications provided to the Crown by the complainant. Again, defence counsel asserted in writing that there is no way a court could ever find the client guilty of this offence on this evidence. In addition, Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought information from OkCupid about the status of the client’s account. In fact the account was de-activated well prior to the date of the alleged offence. The email from OkCupid was disclosed to the Crown and the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. C.Z.(2018)

Charges of mischief by making a false police report withdrawn. Client was a landlord who confronted a tenant who was late in payment of rent. Client is a Chinese immigrant who spoke very little English. He attended the police station to advise them that the tenant had threatened to shoot him and claimed he had a gun. The police dismissed the landlord, claiming that it was a civil matter and sent him on his way. The client went away and spoke to another tenant who understood that this was more than a simple landlord-tenant dispute. At the behest of the second tenant, the landlord called the police regarding the threat he received from the delinquent tenant. The police attended the tenant’s apartment and determined there was no gun. The tenant claimed he never spoke to the landlord that day. The police arrested the landlord and charged him with mischief for falsely reporting a threat. The client hired defence counsel Christopher Assie. Counsel investigated the matter and got the details of the second tenant, who was a key witness. Counsel convinced the Crown to have an investigating officer interview the second tenant to confirm the client’s version of events. After further investigation, the Crown agreed with counsel’s assessment of the case and simply withdrew the matter as there was no reasonable prospect for conviction.

Regina v. J.M. (2018)

Charge of impersonation of a peace officer withdrawn prior to setting trial date. A by-law enforcement officer flashed his badge during an altercation between a friend of his and a third party. The third party reported this to the police and J.M. was charged with impersonating a “police officer”. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. A legal memo was drafted by Joseph Neuberger regarding the offence and definition of a “peace officer” which was provided to the Crown. The client was directed to take a program regarding the parameters of the authority of a municipal officer. A report was then provided to the Crown. After two judicial pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. K. M. (2014)

The client was originally charged with numberous domestic related offences. Those charges were withdrawn at trial. However, the client was also charged with two counts of breach of his bail, in particular having contact with the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed chart setting about all of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger took statements of from three defence witnesses who were in the area when the two alleged breaches occurred. These statements directly contradicted the complainant’s version of events. The matter was set down for a two day trial, but after considerable discussion with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2013)

Client charged with Fail to Comply with Bail found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client who had worked for a jewelry store was originally charged with allegedly plotting to kill a rival owner of a store in the same plaza. After the main charges were withdrawn, M.K. was charged with allegedly breaching bail by walking by and standing near the complainant’s store. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the legal validity of the charge on the basis that the evidence did not even disclose an offence as M.K. by a bail variation was allowed to “walk by” the store. The Crown attempted to argue that “walk by” meant not stopping. This argument was rejected by the court and the client was found not guilty.

E(B) 2012

Client was charged with Mischief Over $5000.00 from the Toronto G20 Conference in 2010. Neuberger & Partners brought Charter Application at trial to exclude evidence which was granted. The Court found that the Toronto Police conduct in arresting the client had the airs of the worst of fascist states.

Regina v. N.D. (2012)

Charges of Fail to Comply with bail order x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa. The client was a young person charges with various drug offences and while on release was alleged to breached his bail by staying out at night beyond his curfew and to have been in possession of a small amount of marijuana. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to arrange for a complete withdrawal of the initial drug charges and then after sending N.D. for drug abuse counselling, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of the fail to comply charges because of the positive counselling report. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. I.C. (2011)

Charge of impersonating a police officer withdrawn at trial as a result of defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger proving, in cross-examination of the main Crown witness, motive to fabricate the evidence. The client was alleged to have identified himself as a police officer and to have flashed a police business card. The witness and his spouse in fact were under investigation for insurance fraud. The client was working for the insurance company. Once the investigation was established and that the witness knew that I.C. was working with the insurance company, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charge.

Regina v. R.S.A. (2010)

Charges of Swearing False Affidavit and Utter Forged Document withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with swearing and procuring a false affidavit that was tendered before a Justice of the Peace in order to re-open a trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger after a careful and detailed review of the evidence, including the lack of expert evidence to identify the signatures on the impugned documents, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. Z.H. (2010)

Client’s charge of perjury was withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was charged with perjury after testing as potential surety in a bail hearing. Client questioned by Crown Counsel on a past alleged conviction. After reading the affidavit of the client, the Crown searched the name of Z.H. in the police information system and came up with a purported prior conviction with a jail sentence. Crown counsel then cross-examined Z.H. at the bail hearing. After Z.H. denied the prior conviction, he was arrested for perjury. Client was held for bail and then released. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger sought from the Crown, by way of disclosure, a statement from the Crown as to when the client’s name was searched, why, and why was the details not disclosed prior to Z.H. testifying. In addition, information was sought on the Crown policy to disclosing information obtained on a search of a potential surety. Joseph Neuberger took the position that if the Crown had obtained such information, whether it was accurate or not, that information had to be disclosed prior to any questioning of the surety. As such, the charge against Z.H. was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.J. (2010)

Client’s charges of mischief and cause disturbance withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Client was on a flight home from Jamaica when after a little too much rum, the client became embroiled in an argument with a less than customer friendly flight attendant. The allegations included damage to property and loud and disruptive behaviour. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of the employment records of the flight attendant in question, and the other attendants who were working on the flight. In fact, information revealed that there had been prior problems with staff. After negotiation, the charges were 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.


PHONE: (416) 364-3111
FAX: (416) 364-3271