Urgent Assistance
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
Charges of Break and Enter with intent to commit an indicatable offence withdrawn, Toronto. M.A. was charged with Break and Enter with Intent out of North York courthouse. She had a fight with her boyfriend and the boyfriend disconnected her business phone line. M.A. was very upset and came to her boyfriend’s house to ask for the phone line to be connected again as her business was suffering. The boyfriend didn’t let M.A. inside the house. M.A. broke the door and entered the house. Then she confronted her boyfriend and tried to have him connect the phone line. The argument escalated and M.A. called 911. Police arrived and spoke to the boyfriend. Upon finding out that it was his house and that M.A. broke the door to enter it, they arrested M.A. M.A. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya had the client put together a history for her to review and then based on the disclosure and the client’s information, Mariya put together a package for the Crown Attorney, including the background of the relationship, information on the client’s business and personal information of the client for a reasonable prospect of conviction assessment. After two pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Theft Over, Possession Over and Proceeds of Crime withdrawn prior to trial. K.Z. was alleged to have been part of a larger operation for the theft of high-end vehicles. Joseph Neuberger and Christopher Assie were retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyers Toronto. The majority of evidence was based on intercepts and evidence seized from numerous search warrants. When disclosure was sought of the source material for the Information to Obtain for the authorization for the intercepts and the search warrants, the prosecution was not able to provide very much by way of source material. In fact, numerous video surveillance had not been preserved. The notes of officers assisting with taking information from the informant to substantiate the evidence to target K.Z. were poor and failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the authorization for the intercepts and the warrants. As a result all charges were withdrawn.
D.Z. was charged with Mischief to Property and Utter threat out of Newmarket Court. It was alleged that while attending a community centre, he scratched a high-end car after an argument over a parking space. Mr. Navarrete immediately subpoenaed the video surveillance of the community centre and was able to demonstrate to the Crown Attorney’s office that no criminal offence had been committed. Charges against withdrawn and client entered into a common law peace bond with conditions.
The accused was a retired construction worker and performed small construction jobs to supplement his pension. While on a job site, he was working with a CAT small compact track loader. The accused was immediately confronted by police and arrested for possession of stolen property during a police sting operation on stolen construction equipment. O. G. retained defence counsel, John Navarrete. After reviewing disclosure, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown’s office in Scarborough and showed the Crown that there was no evidence that O.G. knew the machinery was stolen. Charges against the accused were withdrawn.
The accused, along with the co-accused, allegedly arranged to sell expensive stolen bicycles to an undercover police officer. John Navarrete was retained by J.F. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and met with the Crown in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete pointed the frailties in identification, and the lack of knowledge by the accused that the items were indeed stolen. Although the items were seized and returned to the bicycle shop, the charges against J.F. were withdrawn.
The accused in this matter was charged with possession of stolen property out of Kingston. The accused had gone to a hardware store on several occasions to pick up large orders of construction materials and on one occasion he was arrested. M.S. provided an incriminating statement. Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete worked together to assist M.S. including having the accused assessed by a Forensic Psychiatrist. Counsel recommended that the accused also perform charitable work and to make a payment for some of the loss suffered by the complainant company as an ex gratia payment. After various Crown Pretrials and Judicial Pretrials, the Crown decided to withdraw the charges against M.S. after being shown that M.S. had a promising future.
Client charged with mischief to property in Newmarket Court for having gotten into a verbal argument with another person at a community centre over a parking spot. Client is alleged to have scratched and kicked light of other person’s vehicle. Mr. Navarrete was retained and immediately subpoenaed the video surveillance from the Community Centre in York Region. This surveillance did not show that Mr. Navarrete’s client did anything wrong. Charges were withdrawn.
Client was charged with Mischief Under $5,000. The client had gambling issues and after an unsuccessful night of gambling, the client had damaged a random car in the parking lot of a casino. The incident was caught on the video surveillance. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained as a criminal defence lawyer. She conducted an extensive pre-trial with the Crown Attorney and explained that the client has gambling issues and a criminal justice system is not an effective way to deal with that despite the incident with the car. The Crown Attorney agreed and the charge was withdrawn after the client made a restitution cheque to the car owner.
Client was charged with Mischief Under $5,000. The charge stems from a domestic incident where the client found out the complainant had an affair. The client became upset and began damaging complainant’s items. The complainant called 911 and the client was arrested. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as his lawyer. As time was of the essence, Mariya had the client start with private counseling focused on anger management and some volunteer work. Mariya spoke to the Crown and advised that due to the client’s personal characteristics and tremendous amount of effort the client had put into his rehabilitation, the charge should be withdrawn and that a peace bond was not necessary. After negations, the Crown has agreed and the charge was withdraw.
Client charged with theft under in relation to items taken at in a mall. Lawyer John Navarrete met with the Crown’s Office at College Park and raised various issues with the witnesses and the lack of surveillance video and client’s actual conduct and raised the issue of “mere presence”. Client completed “Stop Theft Program” and the charges were withdrawn.
Client charged with theft under in relation to items taken at a Walmart. Lawyer John Navarrete met with the Crown’s Office at 2201 Finch Ave West and raised various issues with the witnesses and the lack of surveillance video. Charges withdrawn.
Client was charged with various counts of fraud resulting from an allegation that the client had made a false insurance claim for a stolen motor vehicle. The amount in question was approximately $32,000. Lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the documents submitted by the client to the insurance company and the notes of the insurance adjuster along with Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete then met with the Crown’s office at 1000 Finch Ave West to show them that no criminal offence had taken place. As a result, the Crown Attorney’s office withdrew all the charges against the client on the day of trial.
Charge of public mischief withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. X.C.W. packed in his luggage an alarm clock that very closely resembled a bomb. When the luggage piece was scanned at the airport, airport security and police seized the luggage and arrested X.C.W. The item was seized and examined. It was determined to be an alarm clock and not a bomb however it was very realistic. Part of the airport was shut down for a period of time and the plane was delayed. X.C.W. had no intent to commit public mischief but he was aware of how it appeared. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had X.C.W. do 100 hours of community service. In addition, after researching relevant case law, there was a viable defence. Joseph Neuberger attended several pre-trials and the Crown agreed to withdraw in light of X.C.W. having completed 100 hours of community service.
Client charged with conspiracy to commit theft and theft for an incident arising at Pearson International Airport. Lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown’s office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown’s review to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case. On the day of trial, the Crown withdrew the charges against the client. (Property Crime)
Client had an outstanding historical charge of using fake credit cards and failure to appear in court dating from 2009. Lawyer John Navarrete arranged for client’s surrender and release from custody for these dated charges. In addition, Mr. Navarrete held a meeting with the Crown Attorney’s office at 2201 Finch Ave West and was able to provide materials that raises issues of the client’s intent. As a result, the charges against the client were withdrawn and the client made a charitable donation. (Property Crime)
Charges of possession of stolen property x 13 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. V.L. operates a cell phone store but also purchases used items including used cell phones. A raid on his store resulted in the seizure of a number of items and 13 charges of possession of stolen property. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through purchase receipts for the alleged items that a number were not stolen and those that were questionable were purchased at a sufficiently reasonable price that it negated willful blindness on the part of the client. In addition, repeated requests of the Crown to produce statements from the owners of the allegedly stolen items remained unanswered. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty by reason of mental disorder of charges of Mischief Endanger Life x 2, Possession of Cocaine x 2, and Fail to Comply in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client had been unwell for several years and was untreated. While at his apartment, the client cut the safety ropes to construction scaffoldings outside his balcony, causing the entire structure to fall to the ground and present a hazard to the construction workers. In addition, when investigated, the client was found to be in possession of cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychiatrist to assess R.S.D., and as a result, it was found that R.S.D. was suffering from schizophrenia and at the time heard voices that caused him to be confused and unaware that his actions or illegal. After trial, the Judge accepted the defence and found R.S.D. not guilty by reason of mental disorder.
Client found not guilty by reason of mental disorder of charges of Mischief Endanger Life x 2, Possession of Cocaine x 2, and Fail to Comply in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client had been unwell for several years and was untreated. While at his apartment, the client cut the safety ropes to construction scaffoldings outside his balcony, causing the entire structure to fall to the ground and present a hazard to the construction workers. In addition, when investigated, the client was found to be in possession of cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychiatrist to assess R.S.D., and as a result, it was found that R.S.D. was suffering from schizophrenia and at the time heard voices that caused him to be confused and unaware that his actions or illegal. After trial, the Judge accepted the defence and found R.S.D. not guilty by reason of mental disorder.
Charges of theft x 2, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have stolen electronic devices from a colleague at work, and while at an electronics store. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no direct evidence of the client stealing and based upon video surveillance, there was not exclusive opportunity. In addition, evidence seized from the client was done in breach of the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Mischief to Property over $5,000.00 x 3, Weapons Dangerous, and Carry Concealed Weapon withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested based on being identified as a black male matching the description of a suspect who was breaking into vehicles in a nearby parking lot. When searched a knife was seized by the police from K.M. The police gave K.M. his rights to counsel but then drove K.M. to a location where K.M. said he had just come from and then to the scene of the break and enters. Some 32 minutes later the police took K.M. to the police station where K.M. never had the opportunity to speak with counsel. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and (b) and sought a stay of the charges. Joseph Neuberger argued that the police did not inform K.M. of the true nature of his detention and failed to act promptly to ensure the client had the opportunity to obtain much needed legal advice. As a result of this compelling argument, the Crown withdrew all charges.
Client, along with co-accused, was charged with robbery with a firearm for a robbery of a student of his Air Jordan Nike running shoes. Client retained Mr. Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown and Judicial Pre-Trials. The matter was set down for a trial. On the day of trial, Mr. Navarrete raised various legal issues including problems with the proof of his client’s knowledge of any firearm, whether the firearm was a firearm, and a possible violation of the client’s 11(b) Charter right, etc. Crown agreed to resolve the matter to an attempt theft. Judge ultimately gave M.T. an absolute discharge after he successfully completed mediation and community volunteering.
Client charged with Theft Under $5,000 in Brampton. Client originally retained another lawyer who was unable to convince Crown to divert this matter given its “planning” and video evidence. Client then retained Mr. Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete put together a book of materials including various reference letters and raised immigration issues that would result from a criminal record which included case law. After reviewing Mr. Navarrete’s material, Crown withdrew the charges and accused performed community service hours.
Charges of Mischief Under and Common Nuisance withdrawn prior to setting trial date on basis on a negotiated settlement where there were extenuating reasons for the commission of the acts in question.
Charge of possession over $5,000.00 withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as Crown conceded Charter Application brought by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenging the search of the vehicle and subsequent seizure of evidence and confession. The defence established violations of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel and to be advised of the reason for detention.
Charges of Robbery. x 2 and Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger negotiated withdrawal of all charges based on inconsistencies in the evidence of Crown witnesses.
charges of fraud, stolen credit card, possession of stolen property, possession of credit card data, theft under withdrawn after defence application for outstanding disclosure and challenge to the technical data produced by the Crown successful.
Client found not guilty on charges of fraud over $5,000.00, breach of trust and theft over $5,000.00 after three day trial before the Ontario Court of Justice.
Charge of fraud under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to trial.
Charges of fraud and counterfeit money withdrawn prior to trial.
Client acquitted after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Possession Stolen Property Over; Possession of Credit Cards and Credit Card Reader, Fraud. Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.
Client acquitted after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of 23 counts of possession stolen property over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000.00.
Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and possession of credit card reading device. Defence raised credible, reliable “evidence to the contrary” as well as an innocent explanation as to the possession of the credit card reading device. After extensive cross-examination of the police officer, witnesses, and detailed submissions, the client was found not guilty of both charges.
Charges of fraud over x 3, forgery x 3, utter forged documents x 4, possession of a forgery device. Withdrawn at trial after successful Charter Application for violations of Section 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, regarding violations arising from an unlawful search of their apartment.
172 counts of possession of stolen property. All counts withdrawn at trial.
Charges of break and enter x5, possession of stolen property, possession burglary tools, breach of probation x5. Client was acquitted after a three-day Charter Application. Judge determined that the Police violated client’s rights under Section 8, and that police conducted a warrantless search of the accused’s residence. The judge excluded all of the evidence and the client was acquitted of all charges before the court.
Charges of fraud under and theft under. Client acquitted after a successful 11(b) Charter Application.
Charges of member of criminal organization, participate in activities of criminal organization x 2, conspiracy to obstruct justice. All charges withdrawn after challenge on credibility of the main Crown witness.
Charges of fraud over x2, copyright infringement x2. Charges withdrawn after challenge on search warrant.
Client found not guilty after trial on charges of Mischief and Breach of Recognizance.
Charges of bookmaking, gaming and betting, proceeds of crime. All charges withdrawn subsequent to constitutional challenge.
Charges of Break & Enter, commit indictable offence, not guilty after attack on forensic evidence.
Charges of Assault x2, Assault With Weapon, theft Under – charges withdrawn.
Charges of Robbery, Assault with Weapon, Mischief, client acquitted at trial.
Charges of theft under, assault – withdrawn.
Charges of theft under – withdrawn.
Charges of theft under, withdrawn.
Charges of theft under, assault, charges withdrawn.
Charges of theft over, possession over, fail to stop for police – charges withdrawn.
Charges of theft over, possession over, charges withdrawn.
Charges of theft over, acquitted at trial.
Charges of Possession of Stolen Property, charges withdrawn.
Client acquitted at trial of charges of Robbery, Forcible Confinement.
