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
联系我们

Sexual Assault Domestic Assault And Other Violent Crimes

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

 

Sexual Assault, Domestic Assault, Criminal Harassment, Threaten Death/Harm, Assault, and other Violent Crimes

Rex v. F.F. (2024)

在多伦多安大略省高等法院进行了为期三天的审判后,客户被判无罪。 F.F.在女儿做家务、上学和完成学业方面遇到了重大挑战。 F.F.来自一个非常传统的拉丁背景,家教非常重要。 原告经常上网结交不好得朋友。 她变得好斗善挑衅。 F.F.在一个成人聊天网站上发现了她,他认为她正在与年长的男人交流。 F.F.一时生气,威胁要把她赶出家门。 原告信以为真,并拨打了911。 她声称,在她6岁和7岁时,FF对她进行了性侵犯,从那时起就对她很刻薄。 F..F. 被指控犯有性侵犯、性干扰和邀请性接触罪。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)被聘为F.F.辩护。 戴安娜·戴维森(Diana Davison)协助辩护。 约瑟夫收集了父母和原告之间的信息记录。因为她经常拒绝走出她的房间,他们只能通过短信进行交流。 这些消息证实了家庭动态和F.F.对她行为的抱怨。 在某个时候,一名技术专家协助辩方获取了投诉人的聊天记录和在线历史记录,只是向她展示了她正在查看的网站,这些网站确实有成人内容,并与年长男性有联系。 在庭审中,约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)对原告进行了广泛的盘问,询问了她与父亲的挑战、信息、他的在线历史,然后分解了所谓的性侵犯指控的动机。 时机是有问题的,约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)能够让申诉人承认,事实上,在她说性侵犯发生的那段时间里,母亲在家并协助就寝时间,而且那时F.F.经常不得不帮助申诉人的兄弟,他患有自闭症,需要很多关注。 申诉人还完全忘记了在她第一次声称被性虐待期间,这个家庭已经搬家了。那时她实际上一直与她的兄弟共用一间卧室,这与她最初对警方的陈述相反。 F.F.得当庭证词被法院相信。法院裁定F.F.先生对所有指控均无罪。

Rex v. B.C. (2024)

B.C 被起诉家庭暴力。审判前在多伦多法庭撤销。 据称,B.C.在一次争吵中与妻子发生了肢体冲突。 妻子报了警,B.C.被捕。B.C 聘请了Neuberger & Partners LLP的Tyler Alviano为他辩护。 尽管起诉证据一再被公诉人延迟,但泰勒坚持积极推动此事,并鼓励公诉人在B.C 参加 16 次私人情绪管理课程后以和平协议解决此事,并附上一份详细说明他进展的报告。 申诉人的陈述在细节上含糊其辞,而申诉人在争吵时非常清楚清楚地表示和威胁要报警。与其让双方对峙庭审,不如让这对夫妇和解。 Tyler 积极和公诉人谈判。在收到报告后,公诉人同意指控被撤销,客户签署了和平协议.

Rex v. A.F.S. (2024)

性侵犯 x 2、性侵犯窒息、袭击造成身体伤害、袭击、强行监禁、损坏他人财物和威胁死亡的指控,都在Oshawa法庭审判的第一天被撤回。A.F.S.在分居的最初阶段与他的配偶住在家里。 A.F.S.拒绝了和解的提议,坚持继续离婚程序。 他的妻子向警方投诉亲密伴侣虐待,包括近期和以前的性虐待。 A.F.S.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger为他辩护。 Joseph Neuberger审查了公诉证据,并从客户那里获得了他与投诉人之间在过去12个月的关系中详细的信息记录,信息显示A.S.F. 一直与投诉人保持距离,行为彬彬有礼,但坚决拒绝和解和亲密相处的请求。 很明显,申诉人正在试图改进关系,而申诉人在口供中表达了她的沮丧和拒绝。 就在申诉人报警后不久,申诉人向警方透露了据称她在向警方陈述的前一天发给A.S.F.的一封电子邮件,告诉A.S.F.他不能对她进行性侵犯。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)确信,这封电子邮件是为了证明她的指控有据可依。 Jospeh Neuberger要求投诉人的手机电子邮件的元数据。 投诉人拒绝了,也没有提供元数据以确定电子邮件的创建时间。 此外,约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)提出了276/278动议,要求法庭采纳“其他性”历史证据和所有记录 – 投诉人与A.S.F.之间的信息。 申请成功,在审讯的第一天,申诉人未出庭受审。 因此,这些指控被撤销。

R. v. D.S. (2024)

D.S. 指控犯有两项袭击罪和一项威胁罪, 在纽马克特法院撤诉。D.S.与申诉人结婚将近15年。两人一起生了孩子。D.S.和申诉人的婚姻正经历动荡时期,申诉人与D.S.的朋友出轨。这导致D.S.和申诉人之间发生了更多的争吵。在某个时候,D.S.想违背申诉人的意愿拥抱她。这是由申诉人记录下来的。还据称,被告在另一个场合推搡申诉人,并告诉她他将“让她死”。D.S.聘请玛丽亚·普罗岑科(Mariya Protsenko)为他的刑事指控辩护。玛丽亚要求客户提供D.S.和投诉人之间的短信历史记录。玛丽亚仔细审查了起诉证据,并让客户参加咨询。在预审中,玛丽亚向指定的检察官出示了一系列短信,这些短信与申诉人的威胁指控相矛盾。尽管其中一项袭击指控被记录在案,但玛丽亚还是说服了指定的检察官在D.S.签订和平保证书后撤诉。 因此,法庭撤销了家庭暴力指控和威胁指控。

R. v. P.H. (2024)

在确定审判日期之前撤回威胁罪的指控。P.H.和他的邻居关系不好。这位邻居声称,P.H.发表了对他充满仇恨的种族歧视言论,并威胁要伤害他。这种彻底的威胁被贴上了仇恨犯罪的标签,警方对此非常重视。 此外,邻居还向警方出示了短信,这些短信可以解释为对邻居的歧视性仇恨。P.H.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger and Partners的Mariya Protsenko为他辩护。玛丽亚收到指控文件后仔细研究,包括邻居的陈述。 玛丽亚要求客户提供他与申诉人之间的详细历史,包括关于他们纠纷真实性质的其他信息。 此外,当事人提供了他的同事、朋友、家人和其他邻居的来信,这些信与申诉人对事件的说法相矛盾。玛丽亚向公诉人提交了辩护打包文件,包括短信的完整历史记录的总结,证明在一定的背景下,这些短信可以解读为不具有歧视性。因此,皇家检察官在委托人签订普通法和平协议后撤回了指控。

Rex v. Y.L. (2024)

用武器袭击和购买性服务指控在Newmarket法庭被撤回。 Y.L.曾去过一家按摩店,在某个时候,他与按摩中心的工作人员发生了争吵。 工作人员报了警,Y.L.被起诉。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)被聘请为这些指控辩护。 Y.L.坚称他被一名工作人员用刀袭击。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)向法庭申请要求了按摩中心的安全摄像机镜头。 录像显示 Y.L.受到刀的威胁。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)和公诉人进行了几次预审,提出该行业贩卖妇女,同时建议客户去进行心理咨询。心理咨询报告 结果非常积极。 此外,Y.L.还完成了50小时的社区服务。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)向公诉人提出客户是出于自卫,并认可了购买性服务的指控。 公诉人鉴于客户所做的前期工作,同意客户签订普通法和平协议撤诉。,客户签署了一份普通法和平保证书

Rex v. W.W. (2024)

在庭审前撤回了对家庭暴力的指控。 W.W.被告在争吵中殴打了他的女友。 公寓的保安人员打电话给警察。 在警察会见了两人后,W.W.被捕。 S.B.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的泰勒·阿尔维亚诺(Tyler Alviano)为他辩护。 泰勒广泛审查了起诉证据,并与指定的公诉人进行了多次预审,指出了证据中的某些不一致之处。 通过谈判达成了和解,W.W.参加了冲突管理心理咨询,咨询完成后撤回了对袭击的指控。

Rex v. Y.G. (2024)

Y.G被告性侵犯、殴打 x 2、殴打窒息、强行监禁、威胁死亡和恶作剧的指控,在确定审判日期之前撤诉。 Y.G.和申诉人有很长的关系。 两人一起租了一套公寓,但Y.G.没有搬进去。 两人分手后不久。 两人多次为公寓租赁成本和其他问题发生争论。几个星期没有任何交流后,Y.G. 受到指控并被捕。 多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)被聘请为Y.G.辩护。 Joseph Neuberger从Y.G.那里获得了申诉人与Y.G.之间的大量信息来源。 这些信息提供了包括财务纠纷在内的纠纷的可靠历史,但信息中丝毫没有涉及任何被告行为。 令人震惊的是,有很长一段时间的短信内容缺失。 拿到警方的随身录像证据后,Joseph发现申诉人及其朋友给警察所诉有相当多的自相矛盾之处,发现捏造对方犯罪源于愤怒和对被Y.G.“搞砸”的财务担忧。 经过几次预审后,确定检察官没有合理的定罪前景,撤销了指控。

Rex v. S.B. (2024)

客户被起诉家庭暴力,在Oshawa 庭审前撤诉。 S.B. 被告掌掴和划伤妻子。 妻子报警, S.B 被逮捕。他聘了Neuberger & Partners LLP 的Tyler Alviano 为其辩护。 Tyler 仔细浏览起诉证据,和公诉人进行多次会谈。向公诉人提供了详细的背景信息包括他和妻子的关系和他事发时个人的处境。 Tyler 鼓励公诉人能允许客户进行16节的情绪管理课程和20小时的义工,然后撤诉。 客户积极配合,完成这些后拿到了一个非常好的心里报告。 公诉人同意签和平协议撤诉。

Rex v. M.K. (2024)

被指控性侵犯,在多伦多第二次审判开始前撤回。 MK在结束与女友的关系后被指控犯有性侵犯罪。 申诉人声称,在他们开始交往期间,她曾到他的公寓参加一个聚会,期间她喝醉了。 申诉人说,她喝得酩酊大醉,不得不爬到洗手间。 在某个时候,她说M.K.在未经她同意的情况下进入卧室并与她发生性关系,她没有能力同意。 Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为该案辩护。 戴安娜·戴维森(Diana Davison)辅助辩护。 辩方提交276/278动议,要求承认双方之间的大量信息以及照片和其他性历史证据。 这些信息与反驳她对这段关系的描述有关,其中包括她对他的追求和对更正式关系的要求。在M.K.慢慢地与投诉人相处的时间减少之后,然后给她发了一条关于他因家庭问题搬到温哥华的信息后,申诉人才选择去警察局。 申诉人认为该信息侮辱了他们的关系,然后声称他在他们关系开始时对她进行了性侵犯。 此外,辩方约谈五名辩方证人,传唤他们出庭,因为他们的证据与申诉人在有关当晚的醉酒程度相矛盾,并支持辩方的说法,即申诉人是清醒的,她要求他的朋友结束聚会,让他上床睡觉。 辩方证人的证词与申诉人叙述事件的一个核心要素,特别是她无行为能力的说法相矛盾。 辩方证据很清楚,她没有喝醉。 此事原定进行审判,但由于法庭太忙而没有开始。 因此,它被定于 2024 年 2 月进行审判。 就在审判开始前,检察官同意约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)对案件的评估,从而撤销了对性侵犯的指控。

Rex v. D.P. (2024)

D.P 被控性侵犯罪; 在伦敦经过为期四天的审判后,公诉人要求撤诉,法庭宣告其无罪。 D.P.被指控带致他人窒息的性侵犯,对方是一名他刚刚在家庭聚会上认识的女人。 据称,在聚会上,被告走近申诉人,与她进行了交谈。据申诉人说,在短短几分钟的谈话之后,被告说他被她吸引,他把车停在外面。然后他们离开了房子,走到不远处他停放的汽车旁。然后两人进入停放的汽车的后座,开始接吻。 据称,被告随后掐住申诉人的脖子,反复掐住她的脖子。 此后,被告被指称脱掉她的裤子和内衣,并反复抚摸她。 其后,被告被控多次在未经同意下与她性交。 D.P.聘请了多伦多刑事律师公司Neuberger & Partners LLP的Michael Bury和Tyler Alviano代表他。 这起案件是一个经典的“他说,她说”的案件,没有其他证人。 性行为这点上没有争议。 D.P.的立场是性行为都是完全双方自愿的。 D.P.否认有任何反复的致其窒息的行为。 Michael Bury和Tyler Alviano准备了一份全面的盘问,清楚地表明申诉人的证据存在重大矛盾和漏洞。 此外,他们还花了大量时间为D.P.一起准备庭审,并制定辩护战略。 在Michael Bury对申诉人进行盘问和D.P.作证之后,公诉人请法院宣告D.P.无罪,因为申诉人在盘问后的证据明显存在问题,此外D.P.始终如一地可靠地讲述了他对事件的说法。 主审法官认可他的表诉,如果庭审继续到双方结案陈词阶段,公诉人将面临一场“艰苦”的战斗,能说服他相信D.P.有罪。因此法官准予撤诉。

Rex v. J.E. (2024)

客户在多伦多安大略省高等法院经过为期四天的庭审后被判无罪。 J.E.为他的孩子聘请了一名兼职看护人。 在她与J.E.一起工作的第二天后,看护人提出了性侵犯的指控。 多伦多刑事律师公司Neuberger & Partners LLP的约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)被聘请为该案辩护。 这些指控涉及J.E.给申诉人下药,把她带到一个有床的储藏室,并对她进行性侵犯。 她描述了喝水,然后没有记忆,直到大约45分钟后她醒来,J.E.对她进行了性行为。 公诉人的案件围绕着两个重要方面展开;一个是她被下药了,第二个是她被带到储藏室。 当收到起诉证据时,值得注意的是,毒理学报告在她的尿液中没有检测到乙醇以外的任何物质。 同样,也没有发现受伤。 Joseph Neuberger和Diana Davison仔细地解构了申诉人的陈述。 他们让客户被指控后一周内拍摄J.E.房屋的视频,显示出房屋的各个角落进行分析,用来质疑申诉人提供的关于房屋的若干事实,包括酒精的存在。 他们给花了大量时间研究客户在审判中作证的能力。 在审讯中,对申诉人进行了详细的盘问,发现前后矛盾,但最重要的是,对下药问题的盘问表明,J.E.在一直是在申诉人的视线范围内,她根本没有在他家里喝酒。她想要了一杯水,倒水的时候就在她面前,然后递给她。 如果J.E.在水里下药,唯一可能的时间大约是三秒钟,在此期间,申诉人一直都能看到。 此外,申诉人没有出现任何药物的症状或影响。 申诉人在盘问中声称,她立即昏倒,直到45分钟后醒来才有记忆。 J.E.作证说,当他回到家中时,他与申诉人进行了围绕他的工作和其他个人细节的谈话,这些事实最终导致他被提议,导致双方同意的性接触。在双方同意的性行为之后发生了关于赔偿的争吵,以及J.E.关于移民的威胁。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)起草了详细的书面结案意见。 根据所有证据,法院得出结论,性侵犯的指控没有达到举证标准,J.E.被无罪释放。

Rex v. S.D. (2024)

经过为期四天的审判,客户被判无罪,多项历史性侵犯和性干扰指控。 S.D.与他的妻子离婚,而妻子恰好是一名家庭律师。 离婚诉讼大约一年后,他们的女儿停止了与S.D.的所有联系,S.D.寻求了一些方法与女儿重新联系,包括团聚治疗。 经过仲裁和治疗后,女儿申诉人告诉她的副校长,她不希望她的父亲知道任何关于她教育的细节,因为他对她进行了性虐待。 最终,S.D.被指控犯有多项性侵犯和性干扰罪。 S.D.聘请了多伦多刑事律师事务所Neuberger & Partners LLP的 Joseph Neuberger 为其辩护。 在收到起诉证据后,Joseph 发现,作为警方调查的一部分,客户的前妻没有提供口供。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)和戴安娜·戴维森(Diana Davison)获得了所有家庭法庭文件,其中包括S.D.前妻父母疏远的证据。 辩方从S.D.那里收集了多年的照片和视频,因为他是一位尽职尽责的父亲,喜欢拍摄家庭旅行的照片,以及他与女儿在与前妻分居之前和之后的活动。 Joseph Neuberger提出申请,要求在审判中接受这些照片,以便对申诉人进行盘问。 该动议获得批准。 在审判中,广泛的盘问集中在申诉人关于终止与父亲联系的原因的各种陈述上,然后向申诉人提供了至少50张跨越历史指控年份的照片。 在反盘问期间,申诉人继续加倍强调她的指控,并插入新的证据和指控。 这导致了进一步的盘问,并最终证明了与分居后的母亲的一致性。申诉人指责父亲卖掉了家里的房子,婚姻破裂,所使用的语言强调了她与母亲的一致,不仅在离婚时,而且将S.D.从她的生活中移除,这是S.D.的前妻所寻求的。 Joseph 为S.D.审判中作证进行了详细的准备。 在审判中,S.D.陈词非常好,最终证词被法院采信。 随后Joseph提交了大量的书面辩护意见。 最终法院认定S.D.在性侵犯和性干扰指控中上是无辜的。

R. v. N.P. (2023)

安大略省彼得堡法院撤销了对性侵的指控。据称,P.A.与一名13岁的孩子有关系。据称,这名 13 岁的女孩联系了她疏远的父亲,以重建他们的关系。据称,在他们的通信中,她透露她正在与成年的N.P.约会。父亲将她与女儿的通信告知彼得堡方。N.P.因性侵被捕。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Yuvika Johri被聘请为他辩护。在进行了几次公诉人预审和司法预审后,N.P 的问题通过 810.1 和平保释金得到解决。辩方能够证明公诉人证据中的几个问题,包括这名13岁的少年作为申诉人参与了其他性侵犯案件。有证据表明,她一再试图与包括N.P.在内的成年人建立浪漫关系。经过多次尝试,警方无法联系到父亲的陈述,也无法从这名13岁的孩子那里得到陈述。客户接受了广泛的前期治疗,最终通过 810.1 和平保证金撤回了指控。提款对客户来说很重要,因为他持有工作签证,定罪将意味着此后入狱和驱逐出境。

R. v. H.A. (2023)

客户在多伦多安大略省法院经过为期 4 天的审判后被判无罪。投诉人指称,她是在一个交友网站上认识H.A.的。他们同意H.A.从她的住所接她,然后他们去公园散步。投诉人指称,H.A.接她后,他们到几家餐馆取食物,但未能得到外卖。她进一步指称,在到达公园后不到十分钟,H.A.声称感到不适,并建议他们回到投诉人的住所继续约会。她指称,在到达申诉人的住所后,H.A.一进入她的住所就亲吻了她。然后他把她推到客厅的沙发上,继续亲吻她。其后,她指称H.A.握住她的手,将她拖到卧室,强迫她发生性关系。投诉人亦提供照片,显示她的手上和肚子上有受伤的痕迹,她声称这是性侵犯的结果。几天后,投诉人向警方报案。然而,警方在一年多的时间里一直无法找到H.A.。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Yuvika Johri被聘请为他辩护。法庭提出一项指示动议,要求就最初在客厅接吻是否属于犯罪取得司法指导;投诉人在向警方的供词中解释,这是双方同意的,卧室内的性行为是被迫进行的。辩方胜诉,并决定不需要第276条申请将接吻视为“其他性活动”。Yuvika Johri对申诉人进行了两天的盘问,并能够确定申诉人向警方的陈述与她的法庭证词存在重大不一致之处。申诉人对主审期间的日期和所指称的性侵犯的描述,在各个方面都与她在陈述中向警方作出的解释不同。经过4天的审判,性侵犯的指控被驳回。

R. v. M.C. (2023)

客户在安大略省纽马克特法院被判无罪。投诉人与M.C.是同居伴侣,育有三名子女。申诉人称她与M.C.分居数年,但为了子女,他们同意同住一所房子。她还解释说,在他们分居期间,他们继续彼此发生性关系。然而,她声称他们在M.C.被捕前一年停止了性关系。申诉人称,在M.C.被捕前6个月,M.C.曾四次对她进行性侵犯。她声称,前两次,M.C.在半夜走进她的卧室,在未经她同意的情况下把手伸进她的裤子里。她声称,在第三次和第四次,M.C.在未经她同意的情况下将她逼到厨房,脱掉她的上衣,亲吻她并抚摸她的乳房。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Yuvika Johri被聘请为他辩护。辩方对投诉人的社交媒体帐户进行了独立调查。辩方发现申诉人在M.C.被捕后发布的两段TikTok视频。根据第278条记录申请,将这些录像与其他辩护材料一起作为审判证据。该申请在三天内成功辩论,辩护材料被认为是可以接受的。在庭审期间,Yuvika Johri对申诉人进行了两天的盘问。辩方的理论是,投诉人利用刑事案件作为手段,以社交媒体影响者的身份声名狼藉。她否认她没有做任何事情来使她的帖子传播开来,尽管她的帖子上有几个主题标签。Yuvika Johri能够证明申诉人提出指控的动机存在一些不一致之处 。经过4天的庭审,客户被判无罪。

Rex v. R.P. (2023)

被控性侵犯 x 7、性干扰 x 7 的指控,在庭审的第一天撤回。 R.P.被一名家庭成员指控性侵犯的历史指控可追溯到大约12至14年前。 据称,这些事件是在家庭聚会、过夜和其他家庭聚会期间连续发生的。 多伦多刑事律师公司Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger、Diana Davison和Nick Whitfield被聘作辩护。 申诉人提供了三份陈述。 每个陈述都被转录,然后分解生成时间图表线,这些图表反应出口供不一致所在。 然后,与不同的家庭成员进行了面谈,以建立辩护叙述,用于驳斥每项罪行,涉及某些罪行发生时在场的所有各方的机会、地点和背景。 细分、历史和目击者访谈驳斥了申诉人的一些性侵犯指控。例如,在被指控发生犯罪的某些时期,R.P.不在该市。 在为审判和盘问做准备方面投入了大量时间。 在审判的第一天,辩方和公诉人之间再次讨论, 当事人签署普通法和平保证书, 所有指控撤回。

Rex v. P.B. (2023)

被指控家庭袭击和武器袭击,在确定审判日期之前撤回。 P.B.正处于分手之中,这是一个痛苦的分裂。 P.B.因被申诉人殴打而报警。 警察到场,将双方分开,P.B.被起诉。 P.B.聘请了Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger为他辩护。 警方没有进行正式的证人证词采集,但确实打开了他们的随身摄像头,并与P.B.和申诉人进行了三个小时的互动录音。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)获得了整整三个小时,并转录了录音。 对录音进行分析后发现警方未能正确评估现有证据,导致P.B.在不是施暴者的情况下被捕。 此外,申诉人立即在家事法庭上利用这些指控,限制与子女的育儿时间,甚至试图将他的父母排除在与子女的接触之外。 两人之间的争论本来可以由双方更好地处理。 显然,这种关系并不健康,双方都有责任,但P.B.不应该被指控。 经过广泛的谈判,签署了普通法和平保证书,并撤回了对袭击和用武器袭击的指控。

Rex v. R.M. (2023)

经过为期三天的审判,客户被判无罪。 R.M.在一家中国交友网站上认识了投诉人。 他们沟通了一个月,然后安排下午在约克地区的大自然中散步。 申诉人上车后开始抱怨想被带到多伦多市中心的一家餐馆或酒吧。 两人争论了一会儿,但最终还是去了大自然。 两人之间的信息清楚地表明,这次约会是一次自然漫步。那是十月中旬一个晴朗的星期六下午。 申诉人身穿短裙,搭配上衣和白鞋出席。 在散步时,两人又因为不去餐厅而发生了口头争吵。 申诉人声称她是被从后面抓住的。 然后她走回停车场,据称R.M.抓住申诉人,把她按在车上,抚摸她的乳房,在她身上不轨了五到十分钟。 投诉人在停车场寻求一个陌生人的帮助并报警。 R.M.被指控犯有性侵犯罪。 Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为R.M.先生辩护。 在庭审中,约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)对申诉人进行了大半天的盘问,申诉人勉强承认,她确实要求去一家餐馆,而且她没有穿合适的衣服在树林里远足。 此外,她还仔细地注意到R.M.的高端汽车,他昂贵的衣服,以及他有一份好工作。 投诉人的证词有几个重大的矛盾之处,包括在车里有相当多的争执,关于我的客户以什么为生,他来自哪里,他的收入,以及她想去餐馆。 R.M.作证说,他没有对申诉人进行性侵犯,但当他们回到他的车上时,他告诉她,她显然是在寻找一个富有的中国男人,他指责她是一个淘金者。 她心烦意乱,下了车,走到另一辆车上,在那里她拨打了911。 此外,Joseph Neuberger传唤了申诉人离开时在场的两名平民证人。 两名平民证人作证说,停车场很忙,大约3/4停满了汽车。 此外,公园里有很多徒步旅行者,包括遛狗和骑自行车的人。这证实了R.M.的证词,并直接反驳了申诉人关于这是一个偏僻地区的说法。 申诉人显然试图将R.M.定性为性侵犯者。 在详细的书面结案陈词后,R.M.被判无罪。

Rex v. M. I. (2023)

M.I.被指控对他的搭档进行武器袭击。 M.I.与他的同居伴侣,即申诉人发生了争执。据称,M.I.向申诉人扔了一个玻璃杯,但没有击中她,撞到墙上。。M.I.聘请了Neuberger and Partners LLP的刑事辩护律师Mariya Protsenko。 玛丽亚审查了披露。加重处罚的因素是,M.I.因殴打前妻而被定罪,并对他现任伴侣有和平保释条款。玛丽亚与指定的皇家检察官进行了预审。玛丽亚能够说服检察官,庭审不是解决M.I.案子的最好途径。客户开始了PARS愤怒管理课程,但没能完成。玛丽亚与检察官进行了进一步的讨论,M.I.被允许完成私人咨询。完成后,客户签订了和平保证书,并撤销了对使用武器袭击的刑事指控。

Rex v. Y.Y. (2023)

Y.Y.被指控犯家庭暴力罪。事发时Y.Y.正在和妻子吵架。指控是妻子在洗碗时,Y.Y.走到她身后,用手打她。妻子拨打了911,并向警方报了案。Y.Y.保留了Neuberger and Partners LLP的Mariya Protsenko。玛丽亚审查了披露,然后与王室进行了两次预审。 玛丽亚提供了有关这对夫妇及其婚姻状况的大量背景信息。 事实上,Y.Y.非常抑郁。 玛丽亚协商,客户将接受私人咨询,以解决婚姻和愤怒问题。 在完成咨询后,客户签订了普通法和平保证书,并撤回了对袭击的指控。

R. v. I.G.(2023 年)

I.G.在多伦多(前芬奇大道西 2201 号)法院被指控犯有两项袭击罪和一项彻底威胁罪。I.G. 去女朋友家参加圣诞派对。在那里,她与女友的男友发生了激烈的争吵。据称,那位男友在试图要求I.G.离开住所时被I.G推了几下。警察被叫来,I.G.被指控犯有袭击罪。第二天,,因为女友对起诉感到不安,I.G.给女朋友发了短信。在短信交流后,女友向警方提供了一份声明,I.G.被指控犯有额外的袭击罪和一项完全威胁罪。指控是I.G.在圣诞派对上寻找手机时将女友的孩子推开,并在短信中发出威胁。I.G.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Mariya Protsenko。 玛丽亚要求并审查了证据和监控视频。在审查了视频后,玛丽亚收到了客户的指示,要求寻求庭审前和解方案。玛丽亚整理了一份打包文件,其中包括I.G.的重要背景信息,包括她一生中经历的许多挣扎。玛丽亚与检察官进行了七次预审。检察官最终同意,鉴于所提供的广泛背景资料,追究起诉不符合公共利益,由于I.G.签署了和平保证书,指控被撤销。

R. v. K.W. (2023 年)

K.W. 被指控犯有两项性侵犯罪、两项强制监禁罪和一项袭击罪。申诉人是K.W.的前女友,她在分手后对K.W.的行为非常不满。她去警察局,提供了一份声明,其中包含许多国内指控,包括两次被K.W.性侵犯。K.W.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Mariya Protsenko。 玛丽亚收到并分析了检察官办公室提供的证据。发现K.W之前和原告曾发生过许多报警事件。K.W.和申诉人之间的关系很复杂,警察多次被叫来,但直到分手才提出指控。在多伦多高等法院进行了为期5天的审判。玛丽亚要求当事人提供与申诉人的所有通信,试图建立原告的虚假指控。 K.W.提供了申诉人发给K.W.的一组短信,Mairya整理了这些信息,并准备了一份备忘录,概述了根据这些通信定罪的合理性。 玛丽亚与公诉人进行了进一步的预审,并提供了备忘录和信息作为辩方证据。 在公诉人审查了备忘录和信息之后,与原告进行了后续讨论。同意撤销了对K.W.的所有指控,并撤销了审判日期。 这是另一个重要的例子,说明投诉人与被指控者之间的信息如何为反驳投诉人的叙述提供丰富的基础。

Rex v. K.Y.(2023)

在确定审判日期之前撤回了袭击和非法进入住宅的指控。K.Y. 有着一个不健康的恋情。他怀疑她正在约会另一个人,他在一天深夜去她家,发现她和别人在一起。 他按了门铃,很明显她和另一个人在一起。 K.Y.失去理智,把女友拉出家门,殴打女友。周围有很多目击证人。 警察被叫来,他被指控。 K.Y.聘请了Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger,Grace Condello和Daisy Zhang代表他。K.Y.为自己的行为感到懊悔和羞愧。 他被送去接受愤怒管理的强化治疗。 Joseph Neuberger和Grace Condello都对K.Y.进行了广泛的背景研究,Condello女士鼓励K.Y.追求他对时装设计的热情。事实上,他被一个著名的美国大学项目录取了。 Condelo女士让K.Y.完成了社区服务,提供了他的学校成绩单和性格证明信。再取得治疗报告和评估报告后。 进行了广泛的预审。 公诉人与申诉人进行了磋商,并提出了和解建议。经谈判,K.Y.签订和平协议,所有指控都被撤销。

Rex v. F.Z.(2023 年)

客户在多伦多高等法院进行为期三天的审判后被判无罪。客户被起诉两项性侵犯罪。 这是一个历史性的判决,我们的客户被法院认定为家庭暴力(情感和心理)的男性受害者,这与他在寻求性同意时的警惕性以及他对申诉人的道歉性质有关。 F.Z.和申诉人结婚约两年,关系恶化。 F.Z.想结束婚姻,在要求离婚后,申诉人离开了家,启动了家庭法庭诉讼。 F.Z.已经将五十万美元转回给他的父母,这笔钱是为这对夫妇买房提供的。 申诉人给F.Z.发了一封电子邮件,说她在F.Z.把钱寄回给他父母的前一天与F.Z.分居了。 大约一个月后,申诉人到警察局作了陈述,指控历史上的性攻击指控。 申诉人提供了两条信息线索,她声称这些信息表明F.Z.已经为性侵犯道歉。申诉人在家庭法庭诉讼中指控性虐待和其他虐待,并要求获得最大的经济支持和损害赔偿。 F.Z.聘请了多伦多刑事律师公司Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger。 在仔细审查了证据之后,约瑟夫在婚姻过程中从客户那里获得了数百条信息,从累积的角度来看,这些信息表明F.Z.在很大程度上处于申诉人的控制之下。 约瑟夫·纽伯格起草并提交了276/278 申请包括性史证据以及所有信息和文件,家庭法院诉讼中的文件以破坏申诉人的可信度。 申请成功。 在庭审中,对申诉人进行了广泛的盘问,表明申诉人不诚实,操纵性很强。 这些信息和家庭法庭材料破坏了她的可信度。 此外,约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)将F.Z.送去进行评估和治疗,以确定他是否因情感和心理虐待而患有疾病。 很明显,F.Z.确实受到了虐待。 在辩方案件的审判中,当事人被传唤并否认了这些指控,但也提供了他所遭受的虐待的细节,以及为什么考虑到他在寻求任何性同意时是多么谨慎和谨慎。 对申诉人的盘问表明,F.Z.实际上一直尊重和谨慎地对待同意,直到据称第一次性攻击发生之日。辩方专家的精神病学证据表明,F.Z.表现出与妻子虐待一致的复杂创伤症状,并且他与虐待一致的行为导致他顺从,道歉,并且非常小心他如何与妻子在生活的各个方面互动。 在审判结束时,我们起草了书面结案陈述,广泛引用了审判证据和判例法,以支持F.Z.实际上是无辜和诬告的辩护。 法院的结论是,申诉不可信,F.Z.的行为确实符合因受虐待配偶而遭受复杂创伤的情况。因此,F.Z.被判对两项性侵犯指控无罪。

Rex v. U.M.(2023)

客户在安大略省Newmarket法院进行了为期六天的审判后,被认定无罪。客户被起诉袭击、攻击窒息、人口贩运 x 2、物质利益 x 2、采购和宣传性服务罪。 他的大麻供应商要求U.M.协助一位来自安大略省北部的年轻女士。 乌姆 将她放在两家酒店,以他的名字,地址和积分奖励号码,其后不久被指控人口贩卖从事性交易。 U.M.聘请了多伦多刑事辩护律师的Joseph Neuberger,Neuberger&Partners LLP。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)和戴安娜·戴维森(Diana Davison)是诬告男子的倡导者负责处理该文件。 对案件进行了仔细分析,并花费了大量时间起草对申诉人和一名证人的盘问,该证人最初被指控犯有同样的罪行,但因为提供U.M.的犯罪证据而脱罪。 在审判中,经过详细和持续的盘问,成功的提出了非常重要的可信度和可靠性问题。 当事人准备作证,并在审判中这样做了。 审判法官大量引用了对检察官和辩方书面结案陈词的反诘问。 关键要素是客户的监控录像,该客户在将这位年轻女士预订到两家酒店时没有隐瞒自己的身份,没有财务文件支持任何性贩运资金,没有实际证据表明任何约会会见客户,以及申诉人完全自由地与家人联系, 并在多伦多漫游。 在结案的书面陈述中概述了许多与申诉人相矛盾的证据。 此外,其他公诉人证人的证据存在重大缺陷,包括她对审判结果的利益关系,以确保她有义务与警方合作,提供针对U.M.的证据,以便她不会被指控犯有同样的罪行。 在案件结束时,法院裁定U.M.对所有罪行均无罪。

Rex v. V.S. (2023)

在安大略省法院进行了为期五天的审判后,客户被判定无罪。客户被起诉 9 项性侵犯信息 x 2、性干扰 x 2、攻击窒息 x 2 和攻击 x 3。 V.S.的婚姻正在恶化。 他有两个孩子,一个女儿和一个儿子。 V.S.每个月都要出差,因为离家错过了与孩子们在一起的时间。 2020年秋天,申诉人(前妻)与V.S.就他的旅行发生争执,并表示他应该控制与孩子们在一起的时间,因为他旅行对他们来说太难了。 这对夫妇还有其他争吵,但婚姻失败了,V.S.要求离婚,她找到了一份文件,其中包含与家庭律师的通信。 在接下来的几个月里,孩子们和他变得更加疏远,他的女儿在家里对他的教导越来越抗拒。 2021 年 1 月,V.S. 和他的女儿之间发生了争吵,原因是她在上课时间使用手机和使用社交媒体。 V.S.去拿电话,争吵升级。 V.S.出去参加预先安排的商务会议,当他回来时,他被捕并被指控对他的女儿、他当时5岁的儿子和他的妻子性侵犯。以及对他妻子家庭虐待的指控。 多伦多刑事辩护律师Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger和Diana Davison被聘请为他辩护。 约瑟夫将V.S.介绍给一位家庭律师,让他开始离婚申请,并寻求一些家庭法法令探视他的孩子。 约瑟夫与家庭律师密切合作,果然,申诉人妻子在家庭法案件中的答复详细说明了所有刑事指控,并增加了涉及女儿和儿子的其他性指控。 申诉人的妻子要求不平等地分配资产、单独拥有房屋、单独监护子女和10万美元的家庭虐待赔偿金。 家庭法庭文件为约瑟夫·纽伯格提供了丰富的信息来源盘问前妻和妻子离间父子。 事实上,鉴于孩子们的陈述,这是一个非常明显的父母疏远案例。 一份278动议申请书被提交各种文件,信息和图片,说明七年来与客户和两个孩子非常密切的关系。 约瑟夫和戴安娜花了相当多的时间与客户一起帮助他准备审判。 他情绪激动,对审判感到担忧。 此外,还起草了一份详细的盘问问题。在审判中,约瑟夫能够通过交叉询问确定每个证人证词中的材料不一致性,小儿子在 2020 年秋季期间感到困惑并受到其姐姐和母亲的严重影响,包括在报警之前被告知他忘记的记忆。 甚至在审讯之前,盘问发现,当妻子和两个孩子开车去法庭时,申诉人的妻子告诉小儿子记住他向警方陈述中没有的细节。 在盘问中,申诉人妻子否认对儿子或女儿说过任何话。 在对女儿的盘问中,不仅发现她的性侵犯指控前后矛盾且不可信,而且在2020年秋季,申诉人的妻子,即她的母亲,选择了女儿来帮助她获得她和她兄弟的唯一监护权。 通过盘问得出了大量证据,以证明证据串通和玷污。 V.S.作证并否认了这些指控。 在证据之后,约瑟夫·纽伯格起草了详细的结案书面材料,法院最终认定V.S.对所有指控均无罪。

Rex v M.P.(2023 年)

客户在安大略省米尔顿法院进行为期三天的审判后被判无罪。 M.P.在学校与一位朋友关系密切。 两人每天晚上通过Snapchat交流,并在学校交谈。 M.P.对申诉人产生了浪漫的感情,有一天,两人计划在M.P.的家中“闲逛”。 下午,两人变得亲密,但相遇的结局并不顺利,因为申诉人对M.P.说了一些残忍的话。 M.P.告诉她,她知道门在哪里,他不再与她交流。 在2021年夏天,他开始在朋友中听到他强奸了申诉人的谣言。 回到学校后,谣言越来越多,M.P要求与申诉人交谈。 两人见面,申诉人记录了他们的谈话。 M.P.道歉,但要求不要散布此类谣言。 谈话结束后,申诉人报警,M.P.被指控性侵犯。 多伦多刑事律师Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为M.P.辩护。 经过广泛的辩方调查,很明显,申诉人对M.P.切断联系作出了负面反应,申诉人随后发起了一场破坏M.P.与朋友声誉的运动。 她散布谣言,谣言和指控随着时间的推移而增长。 在审判中,Joseph Neuberger能够确定申诉人在细节上非常回避和模糊,以避免明显的不真实证据。 有严重的矛盾,但事实,她最终在广泛的盘问下承认,事实上她参与了所有的性接触。 此外,申诉人决定只向警方交出他们会面的编辑录音,很明显,M.P.道歉是为了避免与申诉人发生进一步冲突。 法院认为,在审判中通过M.P作证,相信他没有犯下某些据称的性行为。 法官在一天结束时无法确定发生了那些性行为,并认为申诉人的证据不可靠。 结果,M.P.被判无罪

R v A.K.(2023)

客户在安大略省法院进行为期两天的庭审后,性侵犯和性骚扰罪名不成立。当事人不仅被判无罪,而且法院相信A.K.的证词,即他没有性侵犯申诉人或殴打她,法官非常不相信申诉人。这是一个需要注意的重要案例,通过适当的分析和准备,真相就会浮出水面。A.K.是一名有执照的技术人员,负责修理牙科设备。他被要求在紧急情况下去牙科诊所修理牙科椅,以便诊所可以运作,而不必取消患者。A.K.去了诊所,办公室接待员向他展示了椅子,经过检查,发现本案申诉人擅自改动了椅子的关键部分。A.K.告诉申诉人,他必须告知牙医诊所的老板,需要订购新的零件,并且可能会有其他损坏。申诉人认为A.K.报告使她被解雇。A.K离开诊所 大约一个小时后,申诉人向办公室经理投诉性侵犯,然后报警。A.K.被指控。 他聘请了Neuberger & Partners LLP刑事律师事务所的Joseph Neuberger为指控辩护。 约瑟夫・纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)与客户深入探讨了发生的事情,并准备了客户作证,并起草了对申诉人的详细盘问。Joseph Neuberger通过盘问确定申诉人捏造了指控,客户被判无罪。如上所述,法院认定当事人事实上是无辜的。

Rex v. A.D. (2023)

A.D被指控性侵犯和性干涉指控。在庭审前、278 项动议后撤诉。 A.D 与妻子共同监护女儿。 在交换女儿后,6岁的女儿抱怨在洗澡时在她的隐私部位被父亲触摸。 调查开始,A.D.被指控性侵犯和性干扰。Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为A.D.辩护。 约瑟夫获得了与孩子患有尿路感染有关的医疗记录,因为清洁不当,医疗记录指示父母协助清洁,以确保相关区域得到清洁,特别是在孩子进入洗手间之后。A.D.详细介绍了他遵循的指示和如何帮助他的女儿进行清洁。 他对这一指控感到非常震惊。 此外,Joseph还对幼儿的口供进行了仔细分析,并附有一份备忘录,分解了口供中出现的问题。 可以说,儿童的口供存在重大问题,即使按现行关于如何评估儿童证人的判例法,证据也不能依赖。 备忘录和所有医疗记录都提交给公诉人。 不幸的是,公诉人决定起诉,此事进入审理阶段,Joseph 进行278项关于医疗记录的动议。 在提交动议记录并详细说明记录的相关性,列出辩护和口供问题后,公诉人决定撤回了性侵犯和性干涉的指控。 *这个案例表明,当当局将孩子带到极端时,作为父母,为了孩子健康接触孩子身体很容易被错误指控。

Rex v. W.W. (2023)

W.W. 被起诉三项袭击罪、强制监禁罪和 5000 加元以下的损坏他人财物罪。申诉人称发生了一起家庭暴力, W.W.在殴打申诉人并弄坏她的手机后将她关在家里。 多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners LLP的Liam Thompson被聘请为指控辩护。 在详细审查了申诉人的陈述,建立了申诉人身上没有任何她所诉暴力可能产生的伤害之后,Liam Thompson成功地证明有充分的理由怀疑申诉人对事件的陈述。公诉人的结论是,他们没有合理的定罪依据,要求撤销了指控。

Rex v G.L.(2023年)

在确定庭审之前,家庭暴力和窒息攻击的指控被撤回。申诉人是客户的女儿,她指称,客户因家务劳动与其发生争执,打她并使其窒息。Neuberger & Partners LLP的Liam Thompson先生被聘请为该案辩护。 Liam与客户会面了几个小时,回顾了父女关系背景,包括从学校收集有关家庭内外女儿挑衅行为的原始文件。 G.L.实际上没有碰过申诉人,而是试图执行申诉人不想遵守的家规。 申诉人没有受伤,警方的说明特别指出,申诉人没有明显的伤害,包括她的脖子上或脖子周围。Liam Thompson向公诉人提交了一份备忘录,仔细分析申诉人的陈述,表明这些指控不可信,一些原始材料表明申诉人很可能为逃避纪律而提出虚假指控。 在与公诉人详细讨论后,Liam能够证明公诉人没有合理的定罪前景,继续起诉此事不符合公共利益。应公诉人的要求,撤销了袭击和殴打窒息的指控。

Rex v L.P.(2023)

在律师提交详细的276/278动议资料后,公诉人在审判前撤回了性侵犯指控。L.P.认识申诉人很多年了。两人过去曾约会过。当时L.P.的妻子身体不适,L.P.一直在寻找可以照顾她的人,申诉人主动联系了被告,说她可以帮忙照顾,但这不是一个好主意。 L.P.很孤独,两人开始共度时光。 申诉人就一些问题要求财政援助,L.P.前后借给她总额超过15,000美元的贷款。 申诉人和L.P.变得亲密。后来L.P.断绝了关系,他认为申诉人和他在一起的唯一原因是为了经济援助。 友谊恶化,L.P.在小额法院起诉原告要求还款。 在诉讼的辩护中,申诉人声称遭到性攻击。 她向辩护方提起诉讼,要求对性侵犯进行赔偿。 然后她决定报警,L.P.被指控性侵犯。 L.P.保留了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger。 该案在Brampton审理。 Joseph Neuberger花了大量时间收集两人交往历史,并获得了大量信息,客户保存的语音消息以及投诉人发送给L.P.的照片。 在审查诉讼文件后,发现申诉人提交的手写记录与她向警方的陈述大相径庭。此外,Joseph向公诉人提交了小额法庭诉讼文件,以及一系列破坏申诉人对事件的说法的重要信息。 公诉人并不同意撤诉。 因此,Joseph向法庭订立了庭审日期和动议日期,以寻求接受和盘问其他性史证据以及大量信息和图片。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)起草了一份长达65页的通知和事实,列出了辩护和历史、信息和图片以及申诉人自相矛盾的笔记。 在提交材料后,与公诉人进行了进一步的讨论,其后公诉人同意撤销了对性攻击的指控。

R. v. N.A.(2023 年)

在庭审之前撤回两项性侵犯罪和两项性干扰罪的指控。在一次激烈冲突的离婚后,N.A.赢得了两个孩子的监护权,他们住在一个两居室的联排别墅里。虽然孩子们和N.A.住在一起,但他允许他们去看望他们的母亲,并与她保持亲切的关系。大儿子睡在自己的房间里,N.A.与原告,即他14岁的女儿共用卧室。原告声称,有一次她与N.A.睡在一张床上时,她醒来时发现他把身体移近她的身体。她声称N.A.把手放在她的肚子上,向上移动以抚摸她的乳房。在与孩子们郊游时,大儿子和N.A.就一个无关的问题发生争执,当时儿子质问N.A.不雅触摸原告。原告录下了这段录像。由于这一论点,儿子和原告决定搬去与原告母亲一起居住。到达母亲家后,原告向母亲透露了发生的事情,并报警。N.A.被指控犯有两项性侵犯罪和两项性干扰罪。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Yuvika Johri被聘请代表NA反对这些指控。Yuvika审查了披露,发现投诉人的陈述不一致。Yuvika与公诉人进行了广泛的讨论,表明原告的陈述不仅前后矛盾,而且有证据表明原告的母亲对N.A.的子女诱导。在进行了几次司法预审后,由于没有合理的定罪前景,对N.A.的所有指控都被撤销。撤销这些指控很重要,因为N.A.是一名特许会计师,定罪将导致他的严重后果。

R. v. T.E.(2023 年)

在庭审之前撤销了四项袭击罪、一项性侵犯罪和一项威胁罪的指控。T.E.的同居配偶(投诉人1)和她的女儿(投诉人2)指称T.E.酗酒,并与两人发生争执。两名申诉人都声称,在他醉酒的情况下,他会殴打他们,并威胁他们搬走他的房子。攻击的范围从拳打脚踢到挤压投诉人的脸。有一次,申诉人2声称T.E.对她进行了性侵犯,将她的裤子拉下来,露出她的生殖器。 她声称她试图将T.E.从她身上推开,但他继续在她的阴道区域和胸部区域触摸她。在T.E.被捕的当天,申诉人2声称,当T.E.威胁要杀死申诉人1时,她正在与T.E.发生争执。申诉人1那时还没到家,然而她回来,T.E就.闯入她的卧室并进行了争吵。她指称T.E.用水瓶喷洒她,当申诉人2试图干预时,据称他也对她做了同样的事情。警方被叫来,T.E.被指控犯有四项袭击罪,一项性侵犯罪和一项完全威胁罪。T.E.被捕后,投诉人2披露了性侵犯的指控。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Yuvika Johri被聘请代表T.E.反对指控。披露显示,各方此前曾多次报警,其中一些是T.E.报警举报投诉人。披露还显示,投诉人2是一名性犯罪者,曾因性侵犯未成年人而被定罪。在与王室进行了广泛的讨论后,Yuvika 成功指出公诉人案件中的几个弱点,因此,对T.E.的所有指控都被撤回。

R. v. N.C.(2023 年)

在庭审之前撤回了袭击的指控。据称,NC正在和她的前男友一起开车,当时他们之间发生了口头争吵。投诉人指称,当他告诉她不能重返工作岗位时,N.C.对他很生气,并开始多次扇他耳光。N.C.曾经与投诉人在同一家公司工作,他的上级建议他通知NC她被解雇。投诉人指称,N.C.在开车时愤怒地抓住他的耳朵,跳到驾驶座上的腿上,开始挤压他的脸。为了摆脱N.C,投诉人靠边停车,据称跳下车并报警。N.C.被指控犯有一项袭击罪。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Yuvika Johri被聘为N.C 的辩护律师。Yuvika仔细阅读卷宗并与指定的公诉人交谈后,说服公诉人撤回指控,条件是N.C 接受前期治疗。简单攻击的指控通过810和平协议被撤回。

Rex v. M.A. (2023)

在多伦多经过为期七天的陪审团审判后被判无罪。 M.A.与朋友在酒吧度过了一个晚上后,他与一位朋友共同被指控,在那里他遇到了一位女士。 一行人回到了M.A.的朋友公寓,两位女士一起来了。 每个人都继续享受那个夜晚,原告与同案被告一起去了一间卧室。 M.A.和另一名女性下楼到公寓外抽烟。 过了一会儿,原告给女伴打一个电话,要求她回到公寓,因为她“不舒服,想回家”。 M.A.和与他同行的女士都来到公寓,注意到原告和同案被告在卧室里做爱。 原告和她的朋友离开后,三天后报警,声称与同案被告发生了性侵犯,并起诉M.A.在她刚进入公寓时也性侵了她并手动触摸了她。M.A.因此被指控性侵犯。 多伦多刑事律师的Neuberger&Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为辩护律师。 发现原告的陈述有重大矛盾之处,但同去的女士证实了原告的相当多的指控。 此事进入陪审团审判,在此期间,Joseph Neuberger仔细盘问了原告和证人,提出了醉酒问题,影响了他们感知和回忆所称事件的能力,使原告当庭的作证前后不一,对M.A.的性侵犯她的版本有三种之多。 也通过Joseph的盘问问题,发现证人的当庭陈述和她对警方的陈述并不一致,她没有看到她所说的。她最终在盘问中同意她所看到的只是M.A.触摸申诉人的膝盖外侧区域,仅此而已。同时Joseph 为 M.A.做好了充分的准备,并在审判中提供了证据。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)向陪审团发表了强有力的闭幕词,M.A.被判无罪。

Rex v. M.F. (2022)

M.F. 被指控袭击、用武器袭击和违反和平协议。 M.F.在与丈夫发生冲突时受到第810条和平协议的约束。 据称,M.F.嫉妒她在丈夫手机上看到的短信并开始打他。此外,据称她拿她的笔记本电脑,用笔记本电脑打她的丈夫。丈夫报警,M.F.被捕。M.F聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger and Partners LLP的Mariya Protsenko。加重处罚的因素是,M.F.以前被指控对她的前夫进行家庭暴力,已经签订了第810条的和平协议。 玛丽亚收集了大量关于客户的信息——背景、就业、在加拿大的身份、与丈夫的短信、客户提供的照片,以及客户对事件的陈述,这些有助她在庭审中的辩护。 玛丽亚与检察官进行了多次讨论,并鼓励检察官等到M.F.完成心理咨询再做最后决定。最后,心理报告非常有利,公诉人承认申诉人丈夫关于攻击指控的证据存在缺陷,同意让M.F.签订普通法和平协议,对她的指控被撤回。

Rex v A.M. (2023)

客户在布兰普顿安大略省法院进行了为期五天的审判后,被判无罪。A.M. 被控性侵犯、造成身体伤害的攻击、攻击 x 2 和完全威胁罪。 A.M.与申诉人有三年的关系。 他们之间关系不好,因为两人经常指责对方不忠。 2018年12月,投诉人一直在监控A.M.的Facebook账户,发现他和另一名女子在一起。 两人发生争执,申诉人搬出了家。 几个月来,两人通过电子邮件,WhatsApp和见面进行了交流。 争论仍在继续,但决定和解,直到A.M.指控,申诉人只想要他的钱,并要求她偿还他一大笔钱。 此外,申诉人感到愤怒的是,据称A.M.和他的表妹分享了她希望保密的照片(实际上,这一指控没有任何意义)。 申诉人于2019年8月报警。 A.M.自首,被指控犯有刑事罪。 A.M.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger为他辩护。 在约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)获得所有证据信息后,他将A.M.的手机发送给技术专家,以提取A.M.和投诉人之间已删除的消息。 提取了1000多条消息,包括视频,图片和大量图像,这些图像是在关系结束之后和关系结束之前。这些材料对反驳申诉人的叙述和每项指控的辩护非常有帮助。 起诉涉及日期从2018年到2018年12月26日不等。 申诉人在给警方的陈述中声称,在她离开A.M.的家后,她不想与A.M.有任何关系,再也没有见过他本人,也很少与他联系。 大量的信息、图像和视频驳斥了她的证据。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)获得了源数据,以确认所有消息和图像的日期。 辩方在审判前提出第276/278条申请,接受“其他性活动”证据和信息作为相关证据,以反驳申诉人的叙述以及她在12月26日之前和之后对关系的描述。 申请成功,所有材料均被裁定可认定。 此事进入审判阶段,约瑟夫·纽伯格对申诉人进行了两天半的盘问,然后要求休庭,然后在审判中提出申请,接受其他“其他性史”证据和进一步信息。 在盘问中,申诉人在回答时否认了信息中列出的一些明显事实,并声称她在12月26日之后从未去过A.M.的家,以及其他不准确的事实。 庭审中申请经过精心起草、论证并取得圆满成功。 在对审判中申请作出裁决后,申诉人拒绝出席Joseph Neuberger的进一步盘问,政府承认对所有性侵犯和性侵犯指控作出无罪的直接判决。

Rex v. B.O.C. (2022)

B.O.C 被控袭击,用武器袭击和强行监禁。在确定审判日期之前撤诉。 B.O.正在和同居女友发生分手争执。脾气变得激烈,B.O.要求申诉人离开。 申诉人下到楼区管理处,抱怨遭到殴打。 警察到达现场,B.O.被起诉。 多伦多刑事律师的Neuberger & Partners LLP的Joseph Neuberger被聘请为指控辩护。 拿到起诉证据后,Joseph Neuberger将申诉人的陈述与客户提供的视频片段进行了比较。 显然,客户提供的录像没有显示任何肢体冲突,但有趣的是申诉人对所称袭击的描述与录像中捕捉到大不相同。 公寓在主走廊和公共区域有内部镜头,但卧室没有。 申诉人称,在大喊要离开时,被被告按在公寓的前门上。 辩护律师Joseph Neuberger向指定的王室提供了录像,和申诉人当时在警局的口供进行对比。 结果,所有指控都被撤销。要提到的是并非所有被告人家中的主要和公共区域有监控。

Rex v. P.M(2022 年)

性侵犯指控 x 2 。成功在 《刑法》276/278 动议后撤诉。P.M.在与申诉人的关系结束几年后被指控。两人在高中约会了大约一年半。 两人分手了,仍然是朋友。 在此期间,申诉人开始在信息和电话中暗示,他曾多次强迫她发生性关系,但这些行为未经同意。 P.M.仍然是申诉人的朋友,但试图与申诉人保持距离。 在几个星期的几次沟通之后,申诉人停止了沟通,然后报警,P.M.被指控犯有两项历史性性侵犯罪。Neuberger & Partners LLP的约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)被聘请为指控辩护。 约瑟夫·纽伯格让戴安娜·戴维森协助辩护,并且有相当多的时间用于调查过去的历史和申诉人,包括收集所有过去的通信,总计超过1000条信息和几封信。 这些文件对了解关系的背景非常有帮助,但更重要的是,P.M.和申诉人之间的活动在信息中异常详细。 特别是,申诉人在关系结束前发出的一封信与双方亲密关系的真实性质高度相关,并有力地反驳了申诉人的叙述。 约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)准备进行庭审,并提出一项动议,要求引入先前的性史证据,以及一系列相关通信,包括这封信。 起草并提交了客户的申请书、事实书和宣誓书。 该申请经过两天的辩论,并取得了成功。 起草的申请书和事实书非常详细地罗列了证据,有力反驳了申诉人对事件的说法的证据以及辩方的证据。 起草这些申请对于为承认先前的性史和双方之间的沟通奠定基础非常重要。 申请获得批准后,王室与约瑟夫·纽伯格进行了交谈,并决定没有合理的定罪理由。 结果,两项性侵犯指控被撤销。

Rex v. Z.C.(2022)

Z.C. 被起诉性侵犯和性干扰罪。在多伦多法庭庭审之前撤诉。 Z.C.先生和他的妻子在2000年代初与他的母亲和继父住在一起。 他们于 2006 年搬出家,2021 年 Z.C. 被捕并被指控犯有性侵犯和性干扰的历史指控。Neuberger & Partners LLP的 Joseph Neuberger被聘为他的刑事辩护律师。 Joseph进行了辩护调查,包括申诉人和Z.C.实际住在同一所房子里的年份和月份的历史和时间表,以及谁住在这所房子里。 有证据显示,申诉人与Z.C.及其妻子关系密切。没有任何冲突或虐待的迹象。 Z.C.是全职工作,在指控性侵犯的那些年里非常忙碌。此外,申诉人在与警方面谈时说,她在大学里上过犯罪学课程,这使她回忆起幼时并提出了指控。 关于“恢复的记忆”和记忆的可靠性存在重大问题。 Joseph 和公诉人进行了详细的会谈,会后达成协议,Z.C.将签署普通法和平保证书,所有指控将被撤回。

Rex v. S.J.(2022 年)

审判前在Newmarket法院撤诉。 S.J.的女儿与一位同学发生了争执。后来,同学的母亲来到S.J.家谈起争吵的事。两人发生了争执,S.J.最终打了同学的脸。然后S.J.和同学的母亲开始互相争吵。事后,同学的母亲报了警。警察赶到,与同学和她的母亲交谈,并指控S.J犯有一项袭击罪。S.J.聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger and Partners的Mariya Protsenko和Daisy Zhang代表她。玛丽亚与S.J.进行了长时间的交谈,并收到了S.J.女儿和同学之间争吵的背景故事。玛丽亚与检察官进行了预审,她向S.J.提供了一些确凿的信息。同时我们建议S.J.完成了情绪管理课程。玛丽亚向检察官提交了一份课程报告,公诉人撤回了对袭击的指控。

Regina v. M.A. (2022)

客户在多伦多安大略省法院进行了为期四天的审判后被判无罪。M.A.在樱桃滩遇到了申诉人,两人交换了Instagram的联系方式。经过一段时间的交流,两人决定去约会。M.A.选择的地点是一家供应酒精的餐厅,申诉人出于某种原因不想去。最终,两人回到了M.A.的公寓,把西莎放在阳台上。到了晚上,两人进入M.A.的卧室里,有了亲密的接触。申诉人生气地离开,两天后联系了警方。M.A.被指控性侵犯。约瑟夫·纽伯格,多伦多刑事辩护律师,为MA辩护在收到起诉证据后,Joseph Neuberger和Diana Davison获得了M.A.与申诉人之间的一系列信息。公诉人打算利用这些信息来建立这样一个故事:M.A.是有计划地操纵申诉人不外出,而是到他家做爱。除了这是男性性侵犯的刻板印象之外,这些信息在上下文中显示出相互调情,以及申诉人决心安排在M.A.家中约会,在他的阳台上放水烟。此外,申诉人提供了第二份陈述,似乎与关于性接触如何展开的第一份陈述相矛盾。在庭审上,仅盘问申诉人就持续了两天时间,其中申诉人被证明在证据中存在严重的自相矛盾,并做出了重要的承认,包括她告诉M.A.她“接近”并达到高潮。这是经过密集的盘问,是申诉人故意在她的两份警方陈述中遗漏的两条重要信息。这与她的主要证据形成鲜明对比,在证据中,她说她没有享受晚上的任何部分,并且在性活动期间感到疼痛并昏厥。在盘问中,她承认对特定的性行为做出了虚假陈述,然后最终同意她心甘情愿地去M.A.的卧室并热情地亲吻他。如上所述,在Joseph Neuberger对盘问的进一步压力下,申诉人作出了两项主要承认。此外,Joseph Neuberger 详细地为M.A. 出庭作证做了精心准备。在审判中,法院认定了他的许多证据,认为这些证据显示是一致的,而且更可信。当法院考虑所有证据时,M.A.被判无罪。

Regina v. X.G. (2022)

在安大略省法院进行为期三天的审判后,客户被判无罪。 X.G. 是一名按摩治疗师,被指控性侵犯一名患者。 X.G.聘请了多伦多刑事辩护律师Neuberger & Partners LLP的 Christopher Assie,为该严重的性指控辩护。 申诉人发短信给XG说,她对接受的按摩不满意。 X.G. 试图通过道歉来安抚不满的客户。 控方试图利用所谓的道歉作为被告承认犯罪的证据。 然而,X.G.和申诉人说的是两种不同的语言。 他们实际上是在相互矛盾地说话。 Christopher Assie运用道歉内容,支持了被告对所发生事件描述。 经过巧妙的盘问,使申诉人对所发生情况的叙述很快就经不起考证。 经过庭审,法院裁定X.G.无罪。

Regina v. D.M. (2022)

D.M. 被指控性侵犯 x 3, 骚扰、持武器骚扰和威胁罪。在Joseph进行详尽地盘问原告后,所有指控撤诉。 D.M.与申诉人在短短两个月的恋爱关系中。 D.M.怀疑申诉人已经和另外一个男性去了尼亚加拉大瀑布, 和他人有恋爱关系。D.M.去她家当面询问, 发现事实上他是正确的。随后, D.M.用他们之间亲密的照片提出了威胁。 D.M.离开, 但申诉人一周后报警。在警察局, 申诉人声称, 在整个关系中, 他殴打她并强迫她做爱。公诉人在寻求五到六年入狱的判刑。约瑟夫 Neuberger 被聘为为辩护律师后, 花了大量时间分析他们之间的微信消息, 包括犯罪日期和之后的内容。建立了申诉人寻求赔偿, 不得才去报警的依据. Joseph 和Grace 将信息记录分时间分析。在庭审中,原告声称有超过20次的性骚扰。Joseph有技巧地盘问建立了相反的事实,他们的关系是恋爱互相尊重的关系,只是原告后来又开始了新恋情。在事实面前,公诉人同意撤诉。

Regina v. J.R. (2022)

J.R. 被控袭击 x 2 和一项袭击(窒息)的指控。该案在安大略省Scarborough法院审判之前撤诉。申诉人和J.R.关系恶化。两人就子女抚养费问题发生了争执。据称,在辩论期间,J.R.打了申诉人的头部和肩膀。当申诉人到警察局时,她回忆起以前的事件,有一次她被打,另一次被窒息。申诉人还声称,他们蹒跚学步的女儿目睹了这些事件。警方指控J.R.犯有两项袭击罪和一项袭击窒息罪。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Yuvika Johri被聘请代表JR反对这项指控。Yuvika审查了申诉人的披露和受伤照片。Yuvika还要求申诉人因袭击J.R.而被捕。在与公诉人进行了几次讨论和司法预审之后,Yuvika确定申诉人实际上对指控并不真实。指称的伤害与证据不符,申诉人以前曾发生过虐待事件。似乎有动机为了孩子而疏远J.R.。经协商,所有指控都将在客户签署和平保证书后撤回。

Regina v. S.P. (2022)

S.P. 被起诉家庭攻击指控 x 2 和一项强制监禁罪。在多伦多Old City Hall以和平保证的方式撤诉。申诉人是S.P.的妻子,她声称两人之间发生了争执,他殴打了她。当她试图离开公寓时,据称S.P.抓住她的手,强迫她进入公寓。然后他踢了她的肚子。据称,一名目击者听到骚动,前来协助申诉人。证人得以将申诉人带到他的公寓,从那里拨打了911。更糟糕的是,S.P.无意中向警方承认,他试图阻止申诉人离开他们的公寓。警方指控S.P.犯有两项袭击罪和一项强行监禁罪。多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Joseph Neuberger和Yuvika Johri被聘请代表S.P. Yuvika审查了披露,并发现了公诉人证据中的几个弱点。经过几次和司法预审,S.P.的辩护准备了一份一揽子计划,其中包括移民律师,监管律师的信件,前期心理治疗的报告和就业信。还提供了申诉人的短信,证明申诉人有恶意,并打算将S.P.置于刑事司法中。指控以普通法和平保证的方式撤回。这个结果对于从医的S.P.是必要的。否则S.P.的行医执照处于危险之中。

Regina v. G.P. (2022)

Charges of Assault withdrawn with an 810-peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. The complainant was a friend who attended a party hosted by the accused. The complainant got into an argument with one of the co-accused over his financial status. The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the accused and his cousins (co-accused) where he was repeatedly punched and kicked. He also alleged that one of the co-accused grabbed a knife and raised it towards him in a threatening manner. Complainant attended a police station the next morning and made a complaint. G.P. was charged with Assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent G.P. After extensive review of the disclosure, and several meetings with counsel for the co-accused, Yuvika convinced the crown to withdraw all charges against G.P. G.P. was at risk if the charges were not withdrawn as his citizen application was pending.

Regina v. G.S. (2022)

袭击指控在审判前在Brampton法庭撤回。G.S.被指控犯有一项与朋友聚会引起的袭击罪。饮酒一段时间后,几个人发生了争执。申诉人指认了一些据称袭击他的人,包括G.S. G.S。 聘请了多伦多刑事律师Neuberger&Partners的Mariya Protsenko作为辩护律师。玛丽亚要求并收到了大量起诉证据,包括身份证明。在仔细审查了所有证人证据之后,玛丽亚列出了一系列重大矛盾之处,这些不一致之处严重破坏了申诉人关于G.S.是争吵参与者的证据。玛丽亚向公诉人提供了一份RPC备忘录,概述了检方陈述中的缺陷。在与检察官的预审中,玛丽亚能够确定案件存在严重问题,起诉G.S.G.S.不符合公共利益,在签订和平协议后撤回了袭击指控。

Regina v. A.H. (2022)

A.H. 被控性侵犯 x 6、性干扰 x 5、攻击 x 4、威胁死亡、性接触。指控在多伦多安大略省法院经过为期五天的初步听证会后全部撤回。A.H.被控犯有各种家庭罪行,包括对他的前妻和继女的性攻击,以及对他与申诉人有亲生女儿的几项攻击和性干扰指控。A.H.是一位著名的牙医,在原告不再是他的病人后,他开始与她建立关系。两人很快有了宗教婚姻,并育有了一个宝贝女儿。两人融合了他们的家庭,但大约一年半后,关系开始因财务问题而恶化。A.H.从伊朗旅行回来时,由于申诉人操纵金钱和盗窃资金而受到伤害,因此终止了与申诉人的关系。这对夫妇在WhatsApp上争吵了几天,然后当A.H.告诉申诉人需要搬到她自己的住所并且他不会支付费用时,申诉人到警察局,指控A.H.犯有多项罪行。约瑟夫·纽伯格被聘为刑事辩护律师。在获得申诉人向公诉人提供的各种陈述和信息后,Joseph Neuberger将此事定为初步听证会,公诉人同意传唤除最小的孩子以外的所有申诉人作证。约瑟夫·纽伯格(Joseph Neuberger)和戴安娜·戴维森(Diana Davison)制定了一份详细而有力的276/278申请,要求法院允许数百条未由申诉人披露的信息,以及辩方试图破坏申诉人证据的图片,卡片和其他文件。申请成功。在初步听证会上,约瑟夫·纽伯格对前妻和她的两个女儿进行了广泛的盘问。证词变得充满敌意,而且由于盘问的设计,所有三名申诉人都串通起来。在盘问结束时,公诉人要求休庭,然后在对初步听证会的记录进行长时间审查后,公诉人撤回了所有家庭虐待指控、性干扰和性攻击指控。这是对A.H.的完全证明。

Regina v. R.K. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 4, withdrawn on the first appearance. R.K. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal defence lawyer. The charges stem from alleged assaults dating back to 2010. The two parties separated and had a long divorce process. About 12 years later, which there were other issues surrounding the children, the complainant decided to go to police and alleged historical abuse allegations. Joseph Neuberger prepared a package of materials for the Crown to assess, including a fairly lengthy family court trial decision, as well as other source material showing not only motive to fabricate about animus. Discussions ensued between defence and the Crown, and it was decided that all charges be withdrawn for no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. C.S. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial in the Newmarket Court. C.S. and his wife were having ongoing arguments. On a particular evening an argument broke out over C.S. preparing dinner. During the argument, the hot dinner was thrown at C.S. and caused burns to his face. He called 911. When police arrived both C.S. and the complainant were interviewed. It was determined that C.S. was the aggressor and was charges with domestic abuse charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the injuries reviewed by a medical expert and sent the report along with the treatment notes of C.S.’s treating physician to the Crown. In addition, a memo was drafted by Joseph Neuberger and sent to the Crown about how gender bias was palpable given the assessment of the police who arrived on scene and determined that C.S. was the aggressor. As a result of the defence work, the Crown withdrew the charges.

Regina v. B.M. (2022)

B.M. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault out of Old City Hall courthouse, Toronto. B.M. and his girlfriend met each out online and both were students at the University of Toronto. After the two started living together, regular arguments began. B.M. decided to move out but didn’t tell his girlfriend. Once she found out, B.M. and his girlfriend began fighting. B.M. called 911 and police arrived. Police officers took statements from both B.M. and his girlfriend and decided to arrest both for Assault. However, while at the police station, the girlfriend provided a more detailed statement and police officers decided not to proceed with the charge against her. B.M. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko to represent as his criminal defence lawyers Toronto. Joseph and Mariya obtained disclosure. They organized it and analyzed it. The statement B.M.’s girlfriend provided at the police station contained some information that could have potentially resulted in an additional charge of Sexual Assault. Furthermore, the University of Toronto investigation officers conducted an investigation and included a Sex Assault allegation in their report. Joseph and Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the Crown Attorney very careful in order to make sure additional charges were not laid. After the defence investigation and interview of a number of key defence witnesses, detailed discussions about the evidence resulted in the Crown deciding to withdraw all charges. B.M. entered into a common law peace bond and the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. P.B.M. (2022)

P.B.M. was charged with five counts of Assault, four counts of Forcible Confinement and one count of Criminal Harassment, Toronto. The complainant was his ex-girlfriend. She alleged that P.B.M. was constantly jealous of her and on a number of occasions didn’t let her leave the house but pushed her and grabbed her. P.B.M. had no status in Canada. P.B.M. retained lawyers at Neuberger and Partners to represent him as his Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya Protsenko carefully reviewed disclosure. It included text messages from the client to the complainant of jealous nature, photos of alleged injuries and the statement of the complainant. Mariya discovered some inconsistences between the alleged injuries of the complainant on the photos and the description of the injuries in the statement of the complainant. A defence medial expert was consulted by the defence. Along with other information, Mariya presented a memo on deficiencies with the Crown’s case and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges. P.B.M. entered into a peace bond and all domestic assault and harassment were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Q. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a very prestigious boys’ school. After a school event, various teachers attended a party to celebrate the end of term. At some point latter in the evening, K.Q. and another teacher were cuddling on a couch at a colleague’s home. There was some intimate touching but one particular intimate sexual touch under clothing in the chest area of the complainant became an issue. After the touch, the complainant bit K.Q. K.Q. apologized the next day and apologized in text. The complainant went to police and K.Q. was charged with Sex Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko and Diana Davison. The history of the complainant and K.Q. was extremely relevant as to how and why K.Q. interacted with K.Q. just prior to and during the impugned evening. After careful review of all the prosecution evidence, and the history provided by the client, there was a dynamic of over two years with intimate physical touching and an emotional bond wherein there were mixed signals that impacted how K.Q. thought about his relationship with the complainant. Such acts included hand holding in public, dancing, nights at each other’s home, and other relevant intimate contact. The complainant maintained it was a purely platonic relationship. For trial, careful, and strategic attention was given to advancing the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent to defend the sexual assault allegation. Considerable time was spent on the case law, crafting the cross-examination of the complainant, and preparing K.Q. for testimony. A motion was brought prior to trial under section 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code to advance evidence of prior sexual history. The defence motion under section 276 and 278 was successful. At trial cross-examination was able to bring out a significant inconsistency from the statement of the complainant with her in-court testimony, as well as various critical factors prior to the date of the alleged offence that impacted the state of mind of K.Q. The defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent is a very complex defence and accordingly written submissions were provided by the defence to assist the court to make critical determinations of fact and law. Extensive time was spent on drafting the closing submissions. As a result, K.Q. was found not guilty of the offence of Sexual Assault.

Regina v. J.G. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after trial in the Superior Court, Barrie. J.G. was charged with a historical sexual assault of his cousin. The allegation was that sometime between 2007 and 2009, J.G. drove his younger female cousin home after she was too drunk to walk home and during the drive stopped and committed a sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The defence team consisted of Joseph Neuberger, Diana Davison and Grace Condello. The client flatly denied the allegation. The evidence of the complainant consisted of two statements provided in 2020 and essentially rested upon repressed memories that were recovered 11 years later during a stressful argument with her husband over separation. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the complainant outlining key inconsistencies between her two statements, and then her in-court testimony at trial. In addition, cross-examination focused on the storyline of the complainant, her drinking habits in 2007 to 2009, including the night in question, and the evidence of her “repressed” memories. Of particular interest was cross-examination that established her first statement noted that she had experienced blackouts and had a patchy memory. Her second statement, expanded considerably on additional details that included a memory of a lack of memory. The client and his wife were prepared as defence witnesses. They testified about the family dynamic at the time of the allegations, how close the family was and how the complainant remained a close cousin and friend through 2007 to 2019 when the allegation was made. As this was a judge alone trial, Joseph Neuberger drafted detailed written submissions detailing the frailties of the evidence and why J.G. ought to be acquitted. The judgement of the court adopted the defence submissions that “the reliability of the complainant’s memory is integral to the Crown’s case. When her memory takes on the appearance of a chalkboard which can be erased and rewritten at will, her evidence loses all reliability.” The judgement is important with respect to assessing recovered memories, and the inherent frailties. In particular, the Court noted that recovered memories should be viewed with suspicion. In our opinion, courts must resist new formulations of “recovered memory syndrome” and recognize the frailty of junk science about memory.

Applications under section 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code of Canada to admit records and prior sexual history

People who find themselves charged with sexual assault often enter the process with myths about how their trial will be conducted.  There are not only myths about what evidence will establish their innocence but also about how evidence can or cannot be used in court.

Due to an increased protection for the privacy rights of complainants, most sexual assault trials require pre-trial applications. Not only to establish what evidence an accused can use in court but also to determine whether or not certain areas of questioning will be permitted in cross-examination.

There is an art to winning these pre-trial applications. Arguments must be articulated carefully and precisely to explain the probative value versus the prejudicial effect. A failure to handle these applications can compromise the integrity and fairness of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada has commented that sexual history evidence will rarely be admissible but at Neuberger & Partners we have been successful in every application brought since the new legislation was passed.  From R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38 at para 56:

In the case of Regina v. Y.Z. we successfully argued the relevance of the complainant’s suspicions about the client cheating on her and their use of a dating app. Additionally, we were able to prove that the couple’s history of birth control methods was relevant to undermine the alleged aggravating factor of not using a condom. After winning the application the charges were withdrawn without the need for a trial.

In the case of Regina v. K.Y., hundreds of pages of WhatsApp messages were reviewed and all 58 segments of the chat history the defence sought to access were deemed to be admissible at trial. The entire nature of the relationship was in question and this was a case with 10 charges, including three alleged sexual assaults spanning the course of the one year relationship. With access to these messages we were able to obtain acquittals on all of the assault and sexual assault charges.

In the case of Regina v. A.H., we were able to show that WhatsApp messages over the course of the relationship were relevant to the true dynamic of the relationship. After winning the pre-trial application the client was able to prove that the complainant was lying about abuse and sexual assaults to the point that she was begging the client not to self-isolate during the pandemic and wanted them and her children to all “catch Covid together.” All 18 charges were withdrawn after winning the application and conducting a preliminary hearing.

In the case of Regina v. K.Q., the complicated defence of “honest but mistaken belief in consent” was the only defence being advanced. This is a very difficult defence  to articulate properly as there is agreement and clear evidence that the complainant did not consent to the touching. The history of the couple’s previous activity was essential to show why the accused had a reasonable belief that she would consent and that he was not being reckless or wilfully blind as to her consent. Without the evidence deemed admissible after the application the client would not have been able to prove he had taken reasonable steps.

In the case of Regina v. A.M. the complainant unsuccessfully argued that none of their numerous text messages were relevant or probative because she could explain them all in a way that did not impeach her statement to police. We were successful in showing that the messages were highly relevant and that the complainant’s credibility on all the issues related to the dynamic of their relationship was a serious issue to be determined in trial.

In the trial of Regina v. N.B., the Crown and complainant’s lawyer both conceded that our application should be granted as the messages were highly probative for the reasons that we articulated. After being confronted with her messaging history with our client the complainant tried to claim she didn’t write the messages herself and the judge did not believe her. The relevance of the messages had to be detailed properly to show that we were not arguing “advance consent.”

In the case of Regina v. D.S., our client faced 6 charges including sexual assault causing bodily harm, domestic assault, threatening, criminal harassment, sexual assault with a weapon (to wit, a dildo). After winning our application to admit numerous emails, text messages and videos the charges were withdrawn as it was clear none of the accusations had a prospect of conviction. The client was spared a trial and was able to move on with his life.

Despite the Supreme Court’s suggestion that sexual history evidence will rarely be admissible, Neuberger & Partners, Criminal Defence Lawyers Toronto,  has been successful in every pre-trial evidentiary application brought since the new, strict legislation was enacted. These applications need to be focused and heavily supported with the most recent case law to ensure our clients receive a fair trial. Although onerous, when done properly a successful application can often result in the Crown reconsidering their prospect of conviction.

It is vital for people faced with sex assault charges, that these application be drafted in a very detailed fashion grounded in the evidence supported by the client’s version of events.  These are NOT simple applications and because of the new legislation, defending sexual assualt charge is a complex nuanced matter.

Regina v. J.B.I. (2022)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. J.B.I. was charged with Assault out of North York courthouse. He and his wife had recently arrived from China and were going through some marital issues. On one of the evenings, J.B.-I. and his wife got into an argument. The wife was having a difficulty adjusting to a new life in Canada and was suffering from depression and anxiety. The argument escalated into a physical fight and the wife alleged that J.B.I. pushed her. J.B.-I. was arrested and released from police station. J.B.-I. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya went through the disclosure including the CAHM report on the complainant. Mariya was contacted by a counsel who was hired by the complaint. Mariya worked with the complainant’s counsel and submitted documents for the Crown Attorney to review. After numerous discussions with the Crown Attorney, the charge of Domestic Assault against the client was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Y. (2022)


Client found not guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Domestic Assault, and three counts of Threaten Death, after a seven-day trial by Zoom in the Superior Court, Newmarket. K.Y. had a religious marriage with the complainant. They were not civilly married. Over the course of the first year of their relationship, arguments emerged about how K.Y. was not willing to have a civil marriage to create a legal marriage in Ontario. In addition, numerous arguments occurred regarding financial expectations of the complainant. After about 16 months of the relationship, the complainant attended the hospital after an extensive verbal argument about the demise of their relationship. The complainant attended the hospital due to falling on the ice but when there had disclosed to a nurse that she was subjected to abuse over the entire relationship with K.Y, and ultimately K.Y. was charged with multiple offences related to domestic abuse including sex assault. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend K.Y. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure and then had K.Y. retain a family lawyer to work with Joseph. The importance of the correct family lawyer in the divorce case was vital to uncovering the reason for fabrication. There were three separate statements provided by the complainant and a few messages that were disclosed to the defence. After careful analysis of the statements there were a number of important inconsistencies but more importantly a general lack of coherence. Joseph Neuberger worked with the family lawyer on the Reply and the discoveries (in the family law proceedings) that provided a robust source of evidence to cross-examine the complainant on to undermine her credibility. In particular, the complainant had filed several documents in the family court proceedings to attempt to convince the family court that there was a legal marriage in order to seek support payments, division of the assets of K.Y. and other financial remedies. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the documents with the family lawyer, and the documents appeared to be fraudulent. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, filed through a 276/278 motion extensive material including WhatsApp messages spanning the entire relationship, family court documents and other evidence to support the defence. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on the documents and was able to establish that the complainant had falsified a marriage licence, marriage certificate, a religious document promising payment from K.Y. of $150,000.00, all of which the Court concluded that the complainant had knowingly participated in providing false documents to establish a legal marriage to allow her to claim significant amounts of money from K.Y. Further, during cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, there were material inconsistencies established on each charge, not only between the statements and in-court testimony, but also in relation to the preliminary hearing. There were also recordings made by the complainant of several arguments during which threats were made by K.Y. Yet when reviewed carefully, did not amount to threats to cause death. Further, the defence spent considerable time with K.Y. preparing him to testify, and at trial, K.Y. testified and his evidence was accepted by the court. It was very important for K.Y. to testify and tell the truth. At the end of the trial, Joseph Neuberger, drafted a 75-page written closing argument to assist the court with properly applying evidence to avoid myth-based reasoning. Ultimately, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine who was telling the truth at trial, but further found that the complainant’s credibility was severely damaged by her involvement in falsifying legal documents. K.Y. was found not guilty of all charges of Sexual Assault, Assault and Threatening.

This case was a rare case where the complainant had gone to the extent of creating legal marriage documents that with careful review by Joseph Neuberger were proved to be false. It was clear in this case that the complainant was willing to fabricate evidence to suit her desire for financial gain. This significantly undermined her credibility and any ability of the court to rely upon her evidence.

Regina v. W.C. (2022)

Charges of Assault, and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court, Scarborough. W.C. and his wife had a series of escalating arguments about their marriage. During one argument, W.C. was cooking and had a knife in his hand. The complainant called police and alleged that W.C. had grabbed her and threatened her with the knife while pointing it at her. This resulted in charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Daisy Zhang, combined the team at Neuberger & Partners who assisted W.C. with his defence. After detailed review of the disclosure and numerous pre-trials, the Crown was persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. W.C. was making dinner during the argument in question and had the knife in his hand as part of his preparation of dinner. Further, based upon the manner of the alleged physical assault as described by the complainant in her statement to police, the defence was able to establish the description was frankly implausible. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw all domestic abuse charges.

Regina v. A.M. (2022)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.M. was charged with sexual assault during a message of his neighbour. A.M. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Brampton Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. A.M. was alleged to have given his neighbour a massage. During the massage, the complainant alleged that A.M. had massaged her breasts and had massaged/touched her clitoris and buttocks without consent thus giving rise to a charge of Sexual/Sex Assault. A.M.’s version of events was that after a brief conversation with the complainant regarding her back pain and other ailments outside of their homes, he offered to provide her with Turmeric – which he knew to be help with physical ailments. He offered to give her some if she did not have any. She accepted his offer and went into his home to retrieve it. While discussing various topics in the home, he pointed out a tube of topical anesthetic cream that had been prescribed to him by a doctor to help with his own muscle pain. He offered her some and she accepted. He applied the cream to her back. He denied touching any other body part and flatty denied Sexual Assault. The complainant told the police that A.M. had then tried to ‘bribe her’ by offering her some jewellery after he assaulted her. The incident occurred about a week before Christmas. The complainant had distorted the interaction, characterized innocuous events as nefarious, and had fabricated the sexual assault. Mr. Assie was able to demonstrate through careful cross-examination that the complainant’s account made no sense and did not withstand scrutiny. What she characterized as an attempted ‘bribe’ was in fact the reasonable actions of a small business owner who was simply trying to make a sale during the lucrative Christmas season by presenting her the costume jewelry he sold in the hopes of turning her into a customer. Mr. Assie also spent a significant amount of time preparing A.M. to testify in his own defence. A.M. was an immigrant and was not entirely fluent in English. He was an older gentleman who had never been in trouble with the law before and was very nervous to testify. The only way to help A.M. from feeling overly nervous at trial was to spend several days conducting mock examinations-in-chief and mock cross-examinations of the facts and basis of the Sex Assault charge. All the work preparing A.M. for trial paid off as the judge ultimately ruled that she accepted his version of events and found him not guilty of sexual assault.

*This is an important example of how it is vital to helping a client prepare for giving evidence in court. This type of preparation of the defence evidence resulted in the client being believed by the trial judge on the sex assault charge. At Neuberger & Partner, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, Joseph Neuberger, over three decades of assisting clients has developed a defined process for defences on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Sexual Exploitation, Domestic Assault and Assault. All lawyers in Neuberger & Partners follow the same detailed approach to defending and helping clients succeed in their cases.

Regina v. N.C. (2022)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial, Kingston. N.C. was charged with one count of sexual assault out of Kingston courthouse. N.C. invited some friends over to his house. After some drinking and watching movies, N.C. ended up having a sexual intercourse with one of the attending friends. Later that night, the friend made a complaint that sexual intercourse was not consensual, and that N.C. had forced himself on her. N.C. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, to represent him the Sex Assault charge. Mariya spoke to the client and carefully reviewed two statements of the complainant, two witness statements and other evidence provided to the defence. Defence interviews were conducted to determine what was observed of the two parties that night. Mariya conducted several pre-trials with the Crown and provided a memo on material discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and witnesses as well as internal inconsistencies. The Crown Attorney agreed that she had a weak case for a reasonable prospect of conviction. N.C entered into a peace bond and the charge of Sexual Assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2022)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Threat Death, Forcible Confinement and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario of Justice Kitchener. A.S. and the complainant have been married for two years. Unfortunately due to stresses A.S. and the complainant argued frequently. A.S. sought a divorce and the argument escalated and continued for several days. A.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger, Toronto Criminal Lawyer, was retained to defend the domestic abuse allegations. After careful review of the evidence and sending the client for intense therapy related to anger and conflict management, Joseph Neuberger, was able to negotiate a withdrawal of all domestic assault related charges for a peace bond.

Regina v. A.A. (2022)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client was on a dating app and planned to meet someone. The client and the person had been exchanging messages and the subject of money came up. The conversation led to a discussion of sexual services for money but was a bit vague. The client attended and the complainant seemed young, and he left. However, the complainant called police and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend A.A. After receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger charted out the statements of the complainant which demonstrated a number of significant inconsistencies. In addition, disclosure was requested for forensic testing of the bedding as the complainant had alleged sexual acts that would have left DNA. The bedding was seized by police. The testing came back negative for any DNA or biological evidence to support the complainant’s version of events. Further, Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo setting out the deficiencies with the Crown’s case including disclosing several messages and the dating site profile of the complainant noting an age over 20. After several judicial pre-trials, it was agreed that the client would sign a common law peace bond and the Sexual Assault charge, and the Sexual Interference charge were withdrawn.

R. v. Z.L. (2022)

Z.L. was charged with Domestic Assault against his wife. ZL retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend himself against these charges. Mr. Assie suggested that ZL do some up-front counselling with a well-respected therapist. ZL agreed and completed the counselling. Mr. Assie analyzed the case and documented the discrepancies between the complainant’s allegations and the observations made by the police. He waited until the counselling was completed and had a favorable report by the therapist before engaging with the prosecutor. Armed with a therapist report and the ability to point out the inconsistencies in the evidence, Mr. Assie was able to convince the prosecutor that it was not in the public interest in prosecuting the matter. ZL agreed to enter into a peace bond without admitting any criminal or civil liability and his criminal charges were withdrawn.

Regina. v. A.F. (2022)

The client was charged with Domestic Assault out of the Scarborough courthouse. She and her boyfriend had a flight during which her boyfriend made some video recordings. The boyfriend called 911 and advised that he was being pushed, pulled and restrained by A.F. Police attended and charged A.F. Originally the Crown Attorney sought a conviction and jail. A.F. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. After receiving disclosure, there were a number of issues related to the veracity of the complainant’s evidence. A.F. had sustained some injury. Ms. Protsenko arranged for some counseling as the couple clearly had issues dealing with stressful events in their relationship. Once completed, Ms. Protsenko conducted a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, provided the counseling report and after discussions about the issues with evidence of the complainant, the charge of Assault was withdrawn.

R. v. W.P. (2022)

WP was charged with sexual assault against his former long-term girlfriend. WP and the complainant dated for five years. WP tried to break off the relationship several times, though he still cared for her deeply. After the final breakup, the complainant left WP a concerning voicemail. WP was so troubled by the message that he went to her home to check on her wellbeing. She let him into her home and he proceeded to comfort her. One thing led to another and WP succumbed to temptation and they had sex. WP immediately realized that he had made a mistake. The next day they talked again and he apologized for giving her mixed messages. He reiterated that he still cared for her but that they just could not be in a relationship together. She pleaded with him to get back together, but he stood his ground. Two weeks later she went to the police and alleged that WP came to her house and anally raped her while her son was outside the bedroom door.

WP retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend himself against these serious charges. WP had all their text messages from the last few years. The first task was for Mr. Assie was argue a 276?278 Application to be permitted to introduce the text messages to undermine the allegations of the complainant. This motion was complex and Diana Davison assisted with the drafting of the Application. After careful and detailed argument, the Application was granted. The text messages were devastating to the complainant’s credibility. With a skillful cross-examination, the complainant’s account of what transpired quickly melted away. The judge had no difficulty acquitting WP and stated in his judgment, “That having been said, the very real possibility – bordering on a probability – does exist that once [the complainant] realized that WP had used her that day, she decided to leverage the Criminal Justice System to ‘punish’ him for what he had done. That interpretation is supported by the manner in which [the complainant] responded to simple questions put to her that ought to have yielded simple and forthright answers. Answers – when they finally did arrive – took the form of protracted responses that consistently reflected the hurt and anger that [the complainant] had been experiencing right up to and including the time of her cross-examination.”

Regina v. R.M. (2021)

Charges of Robbery with Violence and Assault were withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West, North York, by way of a common law peace bond. RM went to a massage spa with few of his friends where they met the complainant who was a stranger. It was alleged that an argument ensued after RM and the co-accused learned that the complainant owned trucks. According to the complainant, RM and the co-accused were jealous over his status of being a truck owner. The Complainant further alleged RM and the co-accused followed him to the parking lot when he tried to leave the establishment. The argument allegedly escalated in the parking lot at which time, the complainant took out his cell phone to call 911. The Complainant further alleged that RM and the co-accused took the cell phone away from the Complainant and proceeded to punch and kick him several times. RM and the co-accused were charged with robbery with violence and assault against the Complainant. Yuvika Johri and Joseph A. Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained to represent RM against the charges. An intensive review of the disclosure was conducted with breaking down frame by fame video footage and the statements. The evidence seemed quite absurd. As a result, Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to undertake an investigation which revealed considerable helpful defence evidence. An interview of the manager of the spa, confirmed that RM did not participate any altercation. Instead, it was the complainant who tried to engage RM while under the influence of alcohol. Based on the results of the investigation, the defence was able to convince the crown to withdraw all charges against RM.

Regina v. A.D (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault were withdrawn by way of a section 810 peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. AD and the Complainant were in a relationship for over three years. They were engaged to be married and were living with each other. The Complainant alleged that AD started suspecting that the Complainant was cheating on him. She also alleged that AD would follow her on numerous occasions due to which she broke their engagement and asked him to move out. On one occasion, the Complainant alleged that AD followed her into a club where he punched her several times on her face. To make matters complicated, the Complainant’s son called AD to make death threats against him. AD met the police to report the Complainant’s son, however, got arrested himself for Assault on the Complainant. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent AD against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure which included several pictures of injuries on the Complainant’s face. At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika established that the Complainant was in fact cheating on AD while they were weeks away from getting married. She also showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw the charges against AD. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against AD.

Regina v. N.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial, Halton Region. Mr. N.M. had separated from his wife and divorce proceedings were filed. Shortly after the filings, Mr. N.M. was charged with Domestic Assault of his former wife, and assault of his son. There was a serious issue of parental alienation involved. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After obtaining and reviewing the statements of the two complainants, Joseph Neuberger disclosed the divorce proceeding documents to the Crown and conducted an extensive pre-trial. It was evident that the criminal allegations were being used as leverage in the family court proceedings for sole custody and an unequal division of assets. Further, Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of a report done by a therapist regarding an assessment with the children including the son who was the complainant. That was also provided to the Crown along with additional defence disclosure. As a result of the defence disclosure, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. E.C. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn, Newmarket. Mr. E.C. was living with his girlfriend. After an evening of drinking the two got into an argument because E.C. did not want to get married. The incident became physical and police were called. E.C. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had the client photographed as he sustained injuries from the altercation. Further, after receiving the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger brought a civil motion to have the complainant removed from E.C.’s home. The complainant had no interest or right to the property and the bail for some reason excluded E.C. from his home. Joseph Neuberger did not act on the bail hearing. The motion was successful and the complainant was removed. Joseph Neuberger then had the bail amended. During the course of the proceedings the complainant made numerous outrageous allegations. After discussions with the Crown Attorney, it was agreed that E.C. would sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. As a result, the charge of assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.Z. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault withdrawn on the eve of trial, Newmarket. Y.Z. was in a on and off relationship with the complainant. The couple broke up in 2018 when the complainant at that time was charged with assault related to Y.Z. The couple reconciled. During a five day period the complainant was staying at the home of Y.Z. and on the last day an argument and physical altercation arose. The complainant reported to York Regional Police and Y.Z. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained to represent Y.Z. Diana Davison was brought on the file to assist. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and carefully analyzed the two statements of the complainant noting oddities about the evidence. Joseph Neuberger brought a 276/278 motion to permit cross-examination of the complainant on prior sexual history evidence and text messages exchanged relevant to evidence given by the complainant. These applications are complex and need to be drafted carefully with supporting case law. The Application was drafted to set out not only the defence but the factum mapped out the issues with the complainant’s evidence. The Application was opposed by the Crown but Joseph Neuberger was successful and given full ability to cross-examine the complainant on all areas sought. After the successful application Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the draft outline of his cross of the complainant and a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction. After some discussions the Crown withdrew the Sexual Assault and Assault charge. * It is important to note that there were subtle inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence that required creative drafting of the cross and weaving together evidence the demonstrated some falsities of the complainant’s evidence. The preparation of the Application and Cross required considerable time but proved to establish the client was innocent.

R. v. L.S.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice located at Brampton. It was alleged that LSM along with two other co-accused(s) arrived outside the Complainant’s residence and started an argument. The argument was allegedly over money the Complainant owed LSM and the co-accused(s). The argument escalated and Complainant alleged that he was punched several times and as a result, dislocated his shoulder. A friend of the Complainant also alleged that he tried to intervene in the altercation and was hit with a wooden object kept on the floor by LSM. LSM was charged with Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Assault Causing Bodily Harm. Several pictures of the injuries and medical reports of the Complainant were provided in the disclosure. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent LSM against the charges. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and conducted several meetings with Counsels for the co-accused(s). At the Crown Pre-Trial, Yuvika showed weaknesses in the Crown’s case and was able to convince the crown to withdraw all charges against LSM. A withdrawal was necessary in this case as LSM was an international student from India and a conviction would impact his immigration status. All charges were withdrawn by way of a common law peace bond against LSM.

R. v. Y.L. (2021)

Charge of Assault was withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 2201 Finch Avenue. The Complainant alleged that YL assaulted him over a disagreement involving their five-month-old corgi puppy. The argument allegedly escalated when YL scratched the Complainant’s hand when she tried to take the puppy out of his hand. Due to loud noises, the neighbours called 911 and police charged YL with Assault on arrival. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to represent Y.L against the charge. Yuvika reviewed disclosure and worked with the Complainant’s Counsel to show that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction in this case. Crown agreed with defence’s position and as a result, assault charges were withdrawn against YL.

R. v. M.F. (2021)

Charge of Criminal Harassment, and Voyeurism withdrawn prior to trial. M.F. had been charged with allegedly sending inappropriate messages and videos obtained of the complainant over a period of several month. The contact was anonymous but due to tech search by police the client was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After careful review of the evidence and extensive discussions with the Crown, and some remedial steps taken by the client, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. R.G. (2021)

R. G. was charged with a domestic assault for an allegation that he assaulted his wife while they argued on the driveway of their home in Milton. Client maintained that wife was the aggressor and argument was over a sexual escapade gone wrong. Mr. John Navarrete obtained the text messages between the wife and the husband prior to the incident and provided them to the Crown Attorney’s office demonstrating that the client was the victim in this matter. Charges against the client were withdrawn and he entered into a common law peace bond.

R. v. H.S. (2021)

H.S. was in Canada on a student visa from India. H.S. and other fellow students became involved in a large fight. Mr. John Navarrete was retained. Mr. Navarrete worked with counsel for the other accused and conducted various Judicial Pretrials and Crown Pretrials in the courthouse in Barrie. After reviewing the disclosure, Mr. Navarrete was able to show that the evidence against H.S. showed that it would be difficult for the Crown to prove that H.S. actively participated in any fight or that he was a party to any offence. As a result, the charges against H.S. were withdrawn and he entered into a peace bond.

R. v. M.A. (2021)

M.A. was charged with a sexual assault against an alleged client of M.A. The accused was a real estate agent and any criminal conviction would result in M.A. losing his professional license. M.A. retained Mr. John Navarrete for his charges out of Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Crown, with the help of the client’s text messages, that any sexual activity was consensual. The charges against M.A. were ultimately stayed by the Crown.

R. v. D.R. (2021)

The accused was going through a volatile divorce with his wife involving child custody issues, spousal support and division of property. In that context, DR was charged with various accounts of assault over the course of his marriage. Given DR’s occupation in any conviction would be catastrophic for him. DR retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete reviewed all of the materials in the family law proceedings and realized numerous crucial major inconsistencies. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pretrial with the Crown Attorney’s Office in Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete then put together a package of materials for the Crown’s review including various documents and affidavits. The charges against DR were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. N.S. (2021)

Like many individuals, NS did not get along with his father-in-law. And during the pandemic, his father-in-law moved into his residence with his family. This new domestic situation led to various verbal arguments. One incident led to NS being charged with assault. The accused retained Mr. John Navarrete to assist him with his charges out of Newmarket. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and had the client perform anger management, and volunteering. Despite the strong Crown case, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown that NS was not an individual that was a danger to society and that a prosecution in this case was not in the public interest. Charges against NS were withdrawn, and NS entered into a peace bond.

R. v. K.S. (2021)

The accused was on a student visa from India. Unfortunately, K.S. became involved in a large fight with numerous other students. K.S. future in Canada was in jeopardy. K.S. retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted various Judicial Pretrials and Crown Pretrials in Barrie. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Crown’s office in Barrie that the evidence seemed to suggest that K.S. was defending himself on their own witness statements. In the end, K.S. entered into a peace bond and his criminal charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. S.Z. (2021)

The female accused was charged with domestic assault out of Old City Hall. She retained Mr. John Navarrete. Upon reviewing the disclosure, it became clear to Mr. Navarrete that his client was not the aggressor. Mr. Navarrete conducted a meeting with the Crown’s Office and the charges against SZ were withdrawn for no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. M.F. (2021)

MF was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, threats and fail to comply. The allegations involved his common law partner. M.F. retained defence counsel John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke with the accused and discovered that the allegations arose from an intimate encounter involving his common law partner and BDSM sex. Mr. Navarrete worked with counsel for the complainant and had several meetings with the Crown’s office in North York and the charges were ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. B.M. (2021)

The accused and his ex-wife got into an argument over their relationship and the children. The wife alleged that over a year ago, the accused had assaulted her on Canda’s Day. She did not report it for over a year. Mr. Navarrete was retained by BM and reviewed the family law documents. Mr. Navarrete subsequently provided to the Crown at Old City Hall various family law documents and client documents, on a without prejudice basis, in order for the Crown to assess their case. BM entered into a peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. YZ (2021)

YZ was charged with Mischief Under $5,000 arising from an alleged argument with his girlfriend. The Crown alleged that YZ had damaged his girlfriend’s phone in a fit of rage and jealousy. YZ retained John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete asked YZ to complete private anger management counseling and to ensure the broke cell phone was repaired or replaced. Mr. Navarrete also obtained numerous character reference letters and provided them and the counseling report to the Crown in Newmarket. The charges against YZ were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R. v. A.S.(2021)

AS was an older gentleman who is alleged to have gotten into an argument with his girlfriend. AS denied any wrongdoing and advised Mr. Navarrete, his counsel, that his girlfriend suffered from some mental health issues. It was these mental health issues that ended their relationship. AS completed anger management counseling, alcohol counseling and Mr. Navarrete provided the completion certificates and reports to the Crown at Old City Hall. In addition, Mr. Navarrete provided to the Crown numerous screen shots and messages that were left on AS’s home phone answering machine and cell phone which demonstrated harassing behaviour on the part of the complainant. Charges against AS were withdrawn and he entered into a common law peace bond.

R. v. M.O. (2021)

MO is a successful owner of various restaurants in Scarborough. He was charged with sexual assault after one of his employees alleged that she was sexually harassed and sexually fondled by MO. The accused retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete obtained the various statements that the complainant had filed with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Ministry of Labour. At trial, Mr. Navarrete during cross examination was able to demonstrate how the complainant’s story had significantly changed on key issues including areas of her body that she now alleged had been touched by MO but that she had never before reported to police or in any other statement. The Crown, witnessing the cross examination, invited the trial judge to dismiss the charge against MO on the first day of trial. Charges against MO were dismissed.

R. v. F.D. (2021)

FD was charged with domestic assault involving his girl friend. FD had met his girlfriend while working at her restaurant. After reviewing disclosure, Mr. John Navarrete, defence counsel retained on the matter, worked with her independent counsel and with the Crown to ensure that FD completed PARS counseling. FD signed a peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.

R. v. J.E. (2021)

JE is a successful Youtuber. He was charged with assault and assault with weapon against his girlfriend who also wanted to be a successful Youtuber. After reviewing disclosure, specifically the statement of the complainant, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pretrial with the Crown Attorney’s Office at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown that the assault charge was self-defence and that the assault with a weapon, the throwing of a cell phone, was a reflex motion that never made contact with the complainant. Prior to the trial being conducted, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of peace bond and the charges against JE were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.H. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton. J.H. resided with his girlfriend the complainant. Unfortunately the relationship was fraught with arguments. On one occasion when the complainant was very unstable, J.H. attempted to calm the complainant and prevent her from harming herself. After the matter calmed down, and J.H. left the apartment, the complainant called police and alleged assault and being struck with a weapon. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, the statement of the complainant was confusing and seemed to relate back to incidents with a prior boyfriend completely unrelated to J.H.. A copy of a psychological report was obtained by the defence. The report was subsequent to the charges being laid. The complainant admitted to wrongly accusing J.H. of assault and believes she was experiencing a flash back or other psychological moment related to a past relationship that unfortunately was abusive. The report was provided to the Crown on a confidential basis. Also, letters attesting to the client’s good character was supplied along with a short assessment as to his understanding of domestic issues including conflict management in a relationship. After several pre-trials the Crown agreed that J.H. was wrongly charged and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 6, Assault with Weapon, Assault x 5, Threatened Death/Harm x 3, Extortion, and Forcible Confinement all withdrawn on the eve of trial, Brampton. The client was in a five year affair with the complainant. The relationship was coming to an end but both parties were not in agreement about ending the relationship. The complainant disclosed the affair to her husband which created a series of events, including messages to D.S.’ wife. D.S. went to police about harassment. The next day the complainant attended police and made numerous allegations of sexual assault, assault etc. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Diana Davison of the firm was also assigned to the defence of the case. The statements of the complainant were carefully analyzed and charted out in line with the chronology of the client. Further, copious emails and messages were obtained form the client relating to the ending of the relationship along with videos, and other documentary evidence. The complainant alleged loaning D.S. over $340,000.00 over the span of the five year affair. Evidence obtained from the client showed transactions returning significant funds to the complainant. Further, the complainant and her husband commenced a civil actions for damages and for the alleged loans. Joseph Neuberger had D.S. retain civil counsel and also went on as co-counsel to the civil action. A joint strategy was employed to defend both the criminal charges and the civil action. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Affidavit of Documents of the complainant in the civil case. Her Affidavit and productions failed to disclose the amount alleged with insufficient documentary evidence, and blanked out banks statements never showing funds provided by D.S. In the criminal case, the complainant did not provide any documentary evidence of advancing funds. When comparing all the evidence and the Affidavit of Documents, it was obvious that the complainant was perpetrating a fraud on the court. Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison drafted a 30 page 276/278 Application to allow cross-examination on prior sexual history evidence and records at the criminal trial. That Application laid out the defence and the messages sent by the complainant that in context completely undermined her assertions of non-consensual sex. In addition a chart was provided establishing material inconsistencies between the complainant’s first and second statement as well as the statements from her husband. The Application was successful. After winning the Application, the defence provided an RPC assessment memo to the Crown, the Affidavit of Documents and productions and put forth the position that the complainant was not telling the truth. The matter had multiple pre-trials and judicial pre-trials. The assigned Crown carefully and fairly reviewed all material supplied by Joseph Neuberger and after detailed discussions agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.L. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Theft Under withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Barrie, Ontario. It was alleged that A.L. was walking from a party while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, A,L. saw a person smoke a cigarette on the porch. A.L. wanted to borrow a cigarette but the person at the porch refused. The altercation ensured where A.L. allegedly kicked and hit the person on the porch. A neighbour called 911 and police arrived. What complicated the matter was that A.L. had a serious criminal record. A.L. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partner, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the prosecutor and then a Judicial pre-trial. Mariya convinced the prosecutor to withdraw the charges after the client completed 4 counselling sessions. Upon entering into a peace bond, all charges against A.L. were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2021)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 stayed prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.G. was at the end of his marriage with the complainant. The complainant had discovered that S.G. had already commenced a relationship with another person. S.G. was charged about a week later after the complainant discovered the new relationship. The allegations of sexual assault were historical. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The disclosure process was very problematic. Further, Joseph Neuberger referred S.G. to a family lawyer and assisted with the settlement of the family law case. During the pre-trials, the defence was able to produce evidence that the complainant had a made a revenge allegation. After the settlement of the family law case, the complainant did not want to continue with the criminal allegation. Ultimately the charges were stayed prior to trial due to a number of deficiencies with the Crown’s case.

R. v. N.M. (2021)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon withdrawn at Scarborough Courthouse. NM was walking with a friend near her apartment complex when the Complainant drove past them. The Complainant alleged that NM blocked the Complainant’s car by standing in front of it. She also alleged that NM sprayed the Complainant with pepper spray when she confronted her about blocking her car. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent NM against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika had an extensive discussion with the crown. Yuvika provided defence materials along with a letter from NM’s friend who witnessed the incident. Yuvika established that it was in fact the Complainant who drove towards NM to hit her with the car and when confronted about it, made false allegations about being attacked with a pepper spray. She also established that there was no pepper spray used in this incident, and that the Complainant was lying because NM shared a child with the Complainant’s boyfriend and had past issues with NM. Charges against NM were withdrawn by way of a peace bond.

R. v. J.C. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. JC and the Complainant were celebrating new years eve at JC’s residence when an argument started between the two. According to JC, the Complainant spoke ill of his sister due to which JC asked the Complainant to leave. The Complainant attempted to leave with an expensive bottle of vodka due to which the argument heated further, and JC called 911 to remove the Complainant from his residence. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant alleged that JC punched him three times on his face. JC was arrested and taken to the police station. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained by JC to represent him against the charges. Yuvika reviewed the disclosure and convinced the crown to resolve this matter by way of a peace bond as the Complainant had mislead JC into having unprotected sex with him without disclosing that he was HIV positive. Yuvika reasoned that the Complainant should have been charged with aggravated assault instead. The assault charge against JC was withdrawn, and client entered a peace bond.

R. v. K.A. (2021)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The Complainant and KA used to drink alcohol daily. During one night of heavy drinking, KA and the Complainant engaged in a heated argument. The Complainant alleged that KA was suspicious that she was talking to another man, so she called 911 to end their verbal dispute. When the police arrived, she claimed that KA had assaulted her on a prior occasion. She also claimed that she had disclosed this prior incident to her sister via text, so she was sure that KA caused it. KA was charged with assault. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent JC against his assault charge. Yuvika reviewed the Complainant’s video statement which showed that the Complainant was heavily intoxicated and could not provide a coherent statement. During the crown pre-trial, Yuvika established that the complainant was not being truthful as she never provided screenshots of her conversation with her sister to the police. Yuvika also reasoned that the Complainant may have hurt herself due to her own intoxication and blamed KA as she was angry with him. Assault charge against KA was withdrawn, and KA entered a peace bond at the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton.

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. Z.G.L. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting date for trial, Newmarket. Mr. Z.G.L. was involved in a martial dispute with his wife over a request for a separation. The client did not want to move out of the house. After the argument he went for a walk and when he returned police were at his home and arrested him for two counts of Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Once the disclosure was fully reviewed, the assault alleged was rather violent, but there were absolutely no injuries and the complainant in her statement kept referring to the separation and that she wanted him to move out of the house. After two pre-trials the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges for the client signing a ten month peace bond.

Regina v. X.L. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial, Brampton, Ontario. X.L. had an argument with his common law spouse. Unfortunately, when X.L. left the residence to take a walk, the complainant called police and alleged an assault. X.L. was charged with Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the allegation. Joseph Neuberger obtained disclosure and the statement of the complainant read like a list of all the reasons why X.L. was a bad spouse save and except for being abusive or assaultive. With a proper read, the allegation was extremely weak. Joseph Neuberger wrote to the assigned Crown with a breakdown of the statement and messages sent by the complainant sent to X.L. subsequent to the charge seeking all sorts of financial compensation. After a productive pre-trial, the agreement was that the Crown would withdrawn the charge and the client would sign a peace bond. As a result, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.H.L. (2021)

Charge of Aggravated Assault withdrawn prior to jury trial, Kingston. The client was in a bar and was surrounded by a group who were intoxicated and after some words back and forth racial slurs were directed at C.H.L. and one member of the group approached C.H.L. and in reaction C.H.L. punched the complainant. Police were called and the client was charged. There was a video of the incident taken by a friend of the complainant that was shown to police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Lawyer to defend C.H.L. Joseph Neuberger conducted a preliminary hearing and cross-examined all of the members of the group including the complainant. The video in fact supported the defence position as the explanation for making the video was that the friend wanted a video record in case there was a fight. That was dealt with in cross examination as if anyone was worried about an altercation, the best action is to leave or step in to stop the altercation rather than record it. The video when played several times has no sound but demonstrates 90 seconds of the group taunting C.H.L. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, collected data of racial incidents in Kington and at the particular university supporting the fear of the client that he was going to be assaulted. A forensic psychologist was hired to assess the client which determined the client had experienced trauma from numerous racialized incidents. The defence put forth was self-defence. As the jury trial approached detailed discussions ensued and it was agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the case and as such the charge of Aggravated Assault was withdrawn. Of note is the fact that there is a legitimate argument for someone who is experiencing verbal racial assaults may in the moment, in particular if surrounded by a group, to fear for their safety and act in a manner to protect themselves that comes within the self-defence law in Canada.

Regina v. R.M. (2021)

Criminal charges of Assault causing bodily harm withdrawn. R.M. was charged with a road-rage type incident at a Tim Horton’s parking lot. It was alleged that he got into an argument with another driver. The argument culminated in a large fight involving several different people. R.M. Client hired Christopher Assie as his Criminal Lawyer Toronto. Unknown to the Crown, several videos had been posted to social media. Christopher Assie collected the videos and put together a compilation that caused the Crown to reconsider its reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown ultimately withdrew the charges when R.M. agreed to enter into a peace bond.

Regina v. S.K. (2021)

Criminal charges of Assault, Assault causing bodily harm and Assault with a weapon withdrawn. S.K. was alleged to have attended the home of the complainants with two other people. During an argument, S.K. and his co-accused were alleged to have started a physical altercation and then grabbed broken chair leg and assaulted the complainants. S.K. was in Canada on a student visa. Any conviction would have immediately lead to his inadmissibility to Canada and lead to his deportation. S.K. hired Christopher Assie. A careful review of the evidence revealed that the allegations of who started the physical altercation and who introduced a weapon during the altercation revealed that it was not cut and dry. Through discussions with the Crown, counsel was able to convince them to withdraw the charges in exchange for S.K. entering into a peace bond and completing some anger management counselling. All charges withdrawn and S.K. was permitted to remain in the country.

R v. A.P. (2021)

Charges of Utter Threats withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client was charged with Uttering Threats to cause death/ bodily Harm. One night, AP and the Complainant engaged in a heated verbal argument. The argument escalated when the Complainant proceeded to call AP’s father to report AP’s behavior. The two proceeded to struggle over the phone. The Complainant alleged that AP made threats to stab her with a knife her if she did not stop. Yuvika Johri was retained as the Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer to represent A.P. against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika convinced the Crown to not prosecute A.P. as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw the charges by way of a peace bond.

R. v. G.M. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial. The client was charged with Assault. The Complainant alleged that they had an argument over infidelity. G.M. allegedly pushed her into a door that caused her to fall and get hurt. The Complainant also alleged that G.M. caused soreness to her hands, and allegedly tried to avoid getting arrested by the police by running over to a nearby construction site. Yuvika Johri was retained as G.M.’s criminal defence lawyer. After much back and forth with the assigned Crown, Yuvika Johri negotiated the charge to be withdrawn in exchange for the client signing a peace bond. The evidence clearly established a motive to fabricate due to the issue of infidelity and numerous implausible facts in the statement to police. This was a classic example of a revenge charge.

Regina v. N.B. (2021)

Found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, of Sexual Assault. N.B. and the complainant had been dating for approximately two months prior to the date of the allegation. Over the pandemic the two had not been able to see each other and after having quarantined they decided to have a car date. During the car date the two became intimate however, the complainant alleged after that she felt pressured into sexual activity and pushed. The complainant spoke to police five days later and said that she had been pushed so hard that she vomited during the sexual act and the accused kept pushing her head and continued the sex act. The accused was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the statement of the complainant, had it transcribed and then obtained the entire messaging between the parties from the start of the relationship until after the night of the alleged incident. Assisting Joseph Neuberger was Diana Davison. The statement was broken down into chart form and analyzed. Many aspects seemed odd or implausible especially when viewed in light of the messaging. A section 276/278 motion was brought to make admissible the messaging and to be able to cross-examine the complainant on issues related to how the two communicated boundaries and consent; the evolution of the relationship and credibility. The motion was successful. At trial, extensive cross-examination took place on aspects of the complainant’s evidence that played down the relationship, and the complainant’s interest in N.B. Cross-examination on the messages yielded a rich foundation of inconsistencies and inaccurate or misleading answers by the complainant. In addition, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison spent considerable time assisting N.B. in understanding the trial process and about testifying at trial. The result was that the trial judge accepted and believed the evidence of N.B. and rejected parts of the complainant’s evidence as being not credible. N.B. was acquitted of Sexual Assault. * Important to note that where there is messaging between the complainant and the accused, careful attention must be paid to the drafting of the 276/278 motion in order to avoid myth based reasoning and apply the messages to grounded facts in the case yielding important evidence to support the defence narrative.

Regina v. A.D. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 7, Criminal Harassment and Threaten Death withdrawn on the eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Halton Region. A.D. and the complainant, his wife at the time, were in the midst of a separation. One morning while A.D. was attempting to take his son to swimming, the complainant and A.D. got into a heated argument. The argument escalated and there was a physical confrontation. The complainant called police and A.D. was charged with various domestic related offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure included a statement from the complainant and the older son of the marriage. The son had not seen an assault but came in during a moment when he thought he had seen his father’s hand raised. The client to his credit had made an audio recording of the event and of two prior arguments. Joseph Neuberger had the audio enhanced and the recordings transcribed. The recordings were disclosed to the Crown. The recording of the event that led to the charge, if listened to carefully, fairly clearly demonstrates that A.D. was slapped twice and then a third time very hard to which the son states “don’t hit back”. The content of the recordings did not deter the Crown from pursuing the charges. Joseph Neuberger also worked closely with the family lawyer and obtained documents from the family court matter that showed that in fact A.D. and the complainant were only common law and had never been civilly married. There was a religious marriage but no civil marriage. Just prior to the argument and the laying of charges, the complainant was arguing with A.D. about wanting him to move out and for her to have sole custody and have the house. As defence counsel reviewed the disclosure in the family case it became clear that the complainant had falsified a civil marriage certificate on a date that A.D. had conclusive evidence he was not in the country. Just prior to trial Joseph Neuberger again put together a chart and memo breaking down time frame by time from the audio recordings and disclosed the family court material. Upon extensive discussions a decision was made by the Crown that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. The client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.Y. (2021)

Charges of Utter Death Threats, Possession of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Weapon withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. J.Y. had been living with his girlfriend for a year and the two were experiencing a deterioration of their relationship. During an argument about who should be the one to move out, J.Y. took a pair of scissors and threatened to cut up the complainant’s favorite stuffed animal. The complainant called 911 and gave a statement that she felt physically threatened and J.Y. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer Toronto. After careful review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger sent J.Y. for counselling regarding conflict management and healthy skills in dealing with relationships. A report was provided to the Crown and on the facts there was no threat at all toward the complainant, only the stuffed animal. Charges withdrawn.

Regina v. R.D. (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 7 and Assault with Weapon/Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn just prior to starting trial in Orangeville, Ontario. R.D. was in the midst of separation from his wife, the complainant, and an argument erupted over the children and finances. Not surprisingly after my client refused her requests and stated that his lawyer will handle these issues, he left the home and about three hours later, R.D. got a phone call from police to turn himself in. He was charged with an assault the day of the argument, and seven historical assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure including the complainant’s statement and limited medical records. The medical records did not support the complainant’s version on events on the assault causing bodily harm. Joseph Neuberger broke down the allegations in chart format and then hired a private investigator who took statements from the two of their children, and two other witnesses as to dates of some of the allegations. The two children, who we had hoped would not be brought into the matter, voluntarily provided statements and were concerned that their mother was providing false information to the police and to the prosecution. The statements from the two boys directly contradicted the complainant on two allegations. In addition, other witnesses provided statements of threats made by the complainant post separation about doing everything possible to ruin R.D. unless she got what she was asking for. As the matter proceeded close to trial, Joseph Neuberger, and the Crown prosecutor had detailed discussions about the frailties of the evidence. Joseph Neuberger provided defence disclosure and then conducted a further pre-trial. After extensive discussions, it was agreed that the Crown would withdraw the charges and the client would sign a peace bond.

Regina v. M.C. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Choaking withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Halton Region. M.C. was in a separation with his wife. The two had numerous arguments about the divorce and as so commonly occurs, M.C. was charged by the complainant with historical allegations of Assault and Choaking. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After receiving and reviewing the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger obtained extensive mental health records dating back to the time period of the alleged assaults. The complainant retained counsel. Joseph Neuberger spoke with the lawyer for the complainant, and it was revealed that the allegations, although in retaliation for her displeasure with the financial settlement offered in the divorce, were also a product of a delusional belief system. M.C. had said that unfortunately his wife, the complainant, was not well for over 10 years, and it appeared that operative mental health issues were a factor in making false accusations. Joseph Neuberger approached the Crown with a letter from the lawyer for the complainant and defence disclosure of the medical records. It was agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were 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.

Regina v. M.K. (2021)

Charges of Human Trafficking, Financial or Material Benefit from Trafficking Persons, Fraud over $5,000.00, Assault, and Utter Threats, all withdrawn prior to preliminary hearing. M.K. had allegedly brought into Canada a domestic caregiver for financial gain, and exploited the worker along with other related allegations. The evidence was not the usual or typical case of this kind. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers to represent M.K. An extensive defence investigation was undertaken after review of the Crown evidence. A voluminous package of materials were assembled along with a 25 page letter to the Crown outlining the defence evidence and establishing the fabrication of evidence, intentional misrepresentation of financial transactions, and legitimate legal means to bring the complainant into the country who had her own agenda as to what she wanted to do in Canada. Lega analysis was provided as well as to “exercise of control” and “benefit” that undermined the complainant’s narrative. After numerous pre-trials, a resolution was reached where withheld salary was paid to the complainant (which was appropriate), and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.J. (2021)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after five day judge alone trial by Zoom, in the Superior Court, Toronto. D.J. was accused by his wife’s sister of sexually assaulting her when she had been staying at the apartment of D.J. and his wife. The complainant moved in with D.J. and his wife due to her financial circumstances. About a week or so after moving in, she alleged that D.J. had entered her room around 2:00 a.m. and sexually assaulted her. She allegedly disclosed the allegation about a week later to D.J.’s wife and then did not go to the police until about one month later after her tires were slashed. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer Toronto. The disclosure consisted of a statement from the complainant and another sister of the complainant R.B. There was no physical evidence to support the allegations and the complainant had two dogs staying with her in her room at the apartment that D.J. was supposed to have removed without causing any noise prior to the sexual assault. There was a history between the complainant and D.J. as to a prior sexual relationship that was relevant to the defence narrative and why the complainant stated certain things about the alleged sexual assault and defence evidence that the complainant actually divulged the affair as opposed to a sexual assault to D.J.’s wife. All of this background information was highly relevant to issues of credibility and the defence narrative. As such, at trial Joseph Neuberger, brought a prior sexual history application under section 276/278 of the Criminal Code which was successful. At trial cross-examination of the complainant was lengthy detailed and confrontational yielding credibility issues but also intentional twisting of evidence particularly in relation to evidence of R.B.. In fact, in cross examination of the complainant criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged that she only told her sister of the details of the alleged sexual assault on the day she called police. The complainant stated that in fact she told her sister R.B. a month prior. The defence called R.B. and the evidence established that she was only told about the allegations on the date police was called about one month after the alleged assault. This was significant in a series of events yielding a motive to fabricate the allegation. D.J. was prepared for testimony and at trial proved to be a reliable witness. As such, the trial judge found D.J. not guilty of sexual assault.
Read More

Regina v. A.D. (2021)

Client charged with a domestic assault on his common law wife. The two were having an argument about family finances and the complainant called 911 alleging that A.D. punched her and threatened her. A.D. was charged with Assault, and Threaten Bodily Harm. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his Toronto Criminal Lawyer to defend the charges. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure and had the statement of the complainant transcribed. After careful review, there were no notes or indications of any injuries. The alleged assault, given the description by the complainant would certainly have resulted in visible injuries. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, criminal lawyer Toronto, obtained the 911 call made by the complainant. There were material discrepancies between the 911 call and the statement of the complainant. In the 911 call the complainant went on at some length (33 seconds) explaining and complaining about the argument over finances and the alleged domestic assault and threatening charges seemed quite secondary. Joseph Neuberger engaged in three judicial pre-trials, and after extensive discussions about the evidence negotiated a withdrawal of all charges in exchange for the client signing a peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

R v. BS (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Failure to Comply was withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown. The Complainant and BS were in a relationship for a short duration. An argument erupted between them both one day and the Complainant alleged that BS forcibly tried to restrain the Complainant in his car. Police were notified and upon meeting her, the complainant alleged that BSM grabbed her wrist and prevented her from leaving her workplace. Christopher Assie and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained by BSM as his criminal defence lawyers. After extensive review of disclosure and negotiations with Crown, the Crown agreed to a peace bond after successful competition of community service and anger management counselling.

R v. SG (2021)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Failure to Comply X 2 were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. SG was in a relationship with the Complainant for a few years but separated thereafter. They share custody of their three children. The Complainant alleged that SG assaulted her on one occasion when she came to drop off their daughter at SG’s residence. The Complainant also made two other complaints for violation of bail conditions by SG on two different occasions. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to represent SG against the charges. The Crown was not willing to resolve because SG had been convicted for robbery and manslaughter in the past. After several pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Mariya and Yuvika were able to show that the Complainant’s allegations were false. The Crown reviewed all materials disclosed by the defence and concluded that the Complainant was filing false allegations. Crown withdrew all charges as prosecuting SG was not in public interest.

Regina v. Z.G. (2021)

Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. Z.G. had a dispute with two tenants that turned into a physical altercation. The two tenants called police and Z.G. was charged with Assault x 2. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Lawyer Toronto to defend the charges. Once disclosure was obtained, Joseph Neuberger turned over a recording made by Z.G.’s witness wherein the complainants are making threatening and disturbing comments to Z.G. Joseph Neuberger conducted a judicial pre-trial and presented a transcript of the recording. Although Z.G. did assault both complainants, this was in the context of him perceiving a serious physical threat, and as such, a resolution was worked out for a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.F. (2021)

Charge of Assault with a Weapon withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. M.F. was involved in a neighbour dispute and oddly was charged over a boundary issue that allegedly involved M.F. using yard instrument to strike the neighbour. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Photographs were taken of the property and after the disclosure was obtained, it was apparent that the complainant neighbour was on M.F. property at the time of the alleged assault. After two pre-trials with the assigned Crown, it was agreed that M.F. would sign a common law peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.J. (2021)

Charge of Domestic Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. R.J. and his wife were married for over 35 years. The relationship had deteriorated and R.J. was the caregiver for his wife who suffered from a very serious diabetic problem. The wife fell due to a drop in her blood sugar and R.J. called 911. The wife was admitted to hospital and while in hospital called police and alleged that R.J. punched her in the face causing the injuries. R.J. was arrested. The police DID NOT obtain the paramedics notes, or the hospital records. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had a detailed meeting with the client and found out that in fact over a two year period R.J. had called police and ambulance on over 50 occasions including due to aggressive behavior of his wife. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all of the 911 calls, brought an application to obtain the medical records and interviewed family members. All of the defence gathered evidence was provided to the Crown during a pre-trial. The medical records confirmed R.J.’s evidence that the complainant was hypoglycemic and had fallen. The injury was related to the fall and not a punch. The 911 calls also demonstrated a pattern of aggressive behavior of the complainant and multiple urgent medical issues. Further, the complainant contacted R.J. 32 times after charging him. Joseph Neuberger instructed R.J. to not answer but keep the voicemail messages. They were turned over as well to the assigned Crown. Oddly the assigned Crown did not want to withdraw even in the face of convincing evidence that R.J. was innocent. Joseph Neuberger scheduled a judicial pre-trial, filed a pre-trial memo and attached the evidence. After the judicial pre-trial the charge was formally withdrawn.

Regina v. A.D. (2020) – Conviction Overturned at the Court of Appeal

A.D. was charged with molesting his niece. He hired a lawyer (not Christopher Assié or anyone from Neuberger & Partners LLP). There was no physical evidence – only her word against his. A.D. told his lawyer he was innocent and that he never touched his niece inappropriately. His lawyer told him that he could not withstand being cross-examined by a professional Crown Attorney. His lawyer didn’t explain to him that if he didn’t testify in his own defence, the jury would be left with only his niece’s allegations. Effectively, his lawyer made the decision that A.D. would not testify. A.D. was promptly convicted by a jury. A.D. hired Christopher Assié to represent him for an appeal. A.D.’s allegations of how his trial lawyer failed to prepare him for trial were shocking. On appeal, Christopher Assié argued that the verdict was unfair because A.D. had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel allegations are very difficult to prove and appeals on those grounds are seldom granted. On appeal, Christopher Assié cross-examined A.D.’s trial counsel and established that he failed to properly advise A.D. regarding whether he should testify in his own defence. His trial lawyer believed after a few conversations with A.D. that he would not do well during cross-examination because he was a nervous and timid man. He never attempted to prepare A.D. to testify. The Court of Appeal found that Christopher Assié had succeeded in establishing that A.D. was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that a miscarriage of justice arose. They overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial. A.D. has hired Christopher Assié to represent him at his re-trial.

R v. JW (2020)

JW had been dating the Complainant for over a year. During a heated argument, police were called by room mates of the Complainant who allegedly saw injury marks on the Complainant and observed that his clothing had been ripped off as well. JW was charged with one count of Assault. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri were retained by JW. After a lot of back and forth with the Crown, a resolution for a peace bond was reached.

R v. AR (2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault. AR and the Complainant were new immigrants in Canada. Complainant and AR were engaged in a heated argument when a neighbor called the police. Upon police’s arrival, the Complainant alleged that AR slapped her and pushed her. Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto, was retained to represent AR against the charges. After reviewing disclosure, Yuvika convinced the Crown to not prosecute AR as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw charges against AR.

R. v. R.G.(2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault. This case involved an allegation of the client assaulting his spouse on their driveway after a night out of drinking. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case with the Crown’s eye witness and the real possibility for the defence to argue of self-defence. Charges against the client were withdrawn on Christmas Eve 2020, and the client entered into a peace bond at the courthouse in Milton.

Regina v. Y.H. (2020)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Client was charged by a co-worker of allegedly touching and kissing her after a shift. Y.H. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal lawyer. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure immediately and for some reason it took over six months to get the complainant’s statement. When it was transcribed and reviewed, the defence had a private investigator take a statement from another co-worker that disputed the event given that they were all present at the restaurant after the shift at the time the alleged sexual assault took place. The statement was disclosed by the defence to the Crown. Several judicial pre-trials were held, and a resolution for a common law peace bond was negotiated and the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Q. (2020)

Client found not guilty after five (5) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. K.Q. was a teacher at a school. He was very close with a number of other teachers at the school. On the eve of March break the teachers got together for an end of term social event. At the end of the night four people attended back at the complainant’s home for food, and more drinking. At some point later in the evening, K.Q. and the complainant were in the complainant’s bed. The two were intoxicated. The two had sexual relations. Within about a week, the complainant alleged a sexual assault to the school where they worked, and then went to police and a charge of sexual assault was laid. Joseph Neuberger, Mariya Protsenko were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. Diana Davison joined the defence team as a specialist in false accusations and legal research. The disclosure was carefully reviewed, and a trial strategy was put in place. Careful attention was paid to cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, and developing the client to be ready for testifying at trial. In addition, much of the prosecution’s case revolved around capacity and male sexual stereotypes. The defence, assailed the evidence on the basis that the complainant was not too intoxicated to consent and the stereotypes are unfair to a male accused. In addition, there were text messages between the complainant and K.Q. prior to and after the alleged sexual assault. The defence was able to establish that the complainant had a prior interest in K.Q. that undermined her evidence at trial, and that the post messages from K.Q., although apologetic, were nevertheless simply acknowledgement of the feelings of the complainant but NOT a confession of doing something criminal. The evidence was complex, but after reliance upon relevant case law and focused submissions on key areas of reliability, the defence was able to establish that the crown could not prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court agreed that the complainant did not lack capacity and had reliability issues that compromised the Crown’s case. The complainant through cross-examination conceded that her memory was essentially unreliable due to “flashback” type memories and reconstructing her memory piece by piece over a week. The trial judge came to the conclusion that K.Q. was not guilty.

Regina v. D.A. (2020)

Client found not criminally responsible on charges of assault, mischief, assault with a weapon, dangerous driving x 3, assault peace officer, and criminal harassment. D.A. after being discharged from a short stay in hospital for a mental health issue, unfortunately had a number of encounters with past friends that resulted in damage and criminal charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. After reviewing the disclosure, and the past medical records, it was apparent that D.A. was suffering from a major mental illness that was operative at the time of the offending conduct. Two defence forensic experts were retained. After extensive pre-trial discussions and trial was conducted and the defence established that D.A. was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.

Regina v. M.M.(2020)

Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threatening, and Assault with Weapon, withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. M.M. was in his car with the complainant, his girlfriend, and an argument ensued about M.M. wanting to end the relationship. The argument got so bad that M.M. stopped his car at an intersection and asked her to leave his car. She refused and grabbed his arm. He then pushed her and opened the door. During the struggle, the complainant called 911 and then eventually exited the car. M.M. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the full 911 call had it transcribed and then conducted a pre-trial with the Crown. The 911 call seemed quite clear that M.M. had stopped the car, and asked the complainant to leave who refused. The complainant then is heard swearing at M.M. and threatening him. The struggle can be heard but there were no injuries and M.M. is heard as saying to the complainant to stop hitting him. Joseph Neuberger agreed to a common law peace bond and all charges were withdrawn. * It was unfortunate that the 911 call was not more carefully reviewed.

Regina v. V.D. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Threatening and Assault causing Bodily Harm, withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Brampton. V.D. and his wife were have ongoing arguments about financial issues. During an argument, V.D. was doing his work in the office of their home. The complainant knocked away his computer and the two struggled over the computer. The complainant called police and alleged a very serious assault including punching to the head. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. The disclosure was obtained and the police notes did not have any observation of injury. The office of the home was noted to be in disarray consistent with V.D.’s version of events. The statement of the complainant was not consistent and in fact had internal inconsistencies. Numerous pre-trials were conducted and V.D. undertook private therapy. The bail was amended and the couple entered into joint therapy to address their marital issues. V.D. signed a peace bond for 6 months and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.E. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property all withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Toronto. The complainant had been living with W.E. for about 8 months. The complainant had a alcohol abuse issue. On the night of the charges W.E. was concerned about the level of intoxication of the complainant and had asked her to leave his apartment. The complainant left but returned a few hours later. All of her clothes were packed and outside the apartment. The complainant entered the apartment and an argument ensued that became physical. W.E. called 911 and when police arrived and interviewed both parties, W.E. got charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer. The complainant’s statement was literally nonsensical and the police notes disclose that the complainant was highly intoxicated. W.E. had injuries in the form of fresh scratches. During pre-trials the Crown had to be reminded that W.E. was on the lease and his girlfriend was a guest and not a tenant. He had full right to ask her to leave and to defend himself. The chares were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.G. (2020)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. D.G. is a foreign trained physician. In Canada he was writing his equivalency exams and working at a clinic. One of the patients during a meeting for a medical note for her school alleged that D.G. hugged her, and slide his hand up her leg and groped her buttocks. The client was charged with Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure, including a very limited interview of the Vice Principal of the school where the complainant had been attending. The complainant attended the client’s clinic and had reoccurring throat infections. But on this date the complainant wanted a note just to give her school in case they needed a medical letter about her absences. Joseph Neuberger had the VP interviewed in a more thorough manner, and it was apparent that the complainant was missing a lot of school days and was in jeopardy of not being able to continue in the program. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of important facts that she was unclear about and specifically about her evidence and her mother’s evidence that no medical note was necessary. Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed the Vice Principal and established that in fact a meeting took place three days before D.G. was charged wherein the VP made it clear that if the complainant was going to miss more dates it was vital for her to get a medical record. In addition, it seems the complainant did not want to attend school due to issues with peers. She was to be changing schools after the first semester. The theory of the defence was that D.G. was asked for a medical note about future dates to be missed, which was not possible. The complainant wanted a favour as she was not sick when she went to see D.G. and needed the note to excuse her for the rest of the semester. When a note was finally drafted, the complainant believed that the note would help her. When she read it, the note did not help her and she needed another excuse to be absent from school such as a sexual assault allegation. D.G. was prepared for testimony and gave evidence at trial. The trial judge found reliability issues arising from cross-examination of the complainant’s evidence particularly around the purpose of the visit but other significant details. The trial judge also accepted the evidence of D.G. In the end, D.G. was found not guilty of Sexual Assault.

Regina v. A.A.J. (2020)

Six (6) charges of sexual assault alleged by the former girlfriend of client withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Collingwood. A.A.J. was in a relationship that was turbulent. The client had concerns about advancing the relationship and arguments were frequent about marriage. The client ended the relationship and asked for no more contact. The next A.A.J. was charged with six counts of Sexual Assault. Joseph Neuberger was hired at the criminal defence lawyer. Two detailed judicial pre-trial were held and Joseph Neuberger prepared a memo on reasonable prospect of conviction based on email and text communications from the complainant leading up to the day before the client was charged. Under the new 278 section of the Criminal Code, these messages would need to be vetted in a motion. Joseph Neuberger decided to draft the motion, with a detailed memo on how the messages undermine the statement of the complainant and provide all of the material to the Crown for review. The Crown determined that not only was there no reasonable prospect of conviction, the messages indicated that the complainant was stalking the client and was angry that he ended the relationship and charged him in revenge. A very clear case of false accusations. The Crown was excellent and open minded in the review. All charges withdrawn.

Regina v. O.H. (2020)

Charges of Assault x 2, and Utter Death Threats withdrawn just prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. O.H. and the complainant had been married for 14 years. The two had separated a few times and during the time of the allegations were separated and living in the same home. There was an argument about O.H. having cheated in the past, and about him not being suitable to have shared custody of their children. O.H. left the house to take a break from the argument and when he arrived back home, police were waiting and he was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages from O.H. between O.H. and his wife, photographs of his own injuries and worked with the family lawyer. The family law documents were very helpful as the complainant set out different facts regarding the assault but clearly stated that she was seeking sole custody and exclusive possession of the house. Joseph Neuberger continued discussions with the Crown including disclosing the family court material and some recordings of arguments. Eventually the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. H.J. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after months of discussions with the assigned crown attorney, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. H.J. was in a short relationship with the complainant. At a point when the couple were arguing about where the relationship was leading and a sense from the complainant that H.J. had cheated on her, H.J. ended the relationship. A few days later another argument erupted via text about returning property to H.J. At that point the complainant made allegations of sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained all electronic communications before and after the break up of the relationship. The couple had in fact messaged a considerable amount each day and argued over messaging. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a statement taken from friend of the couple who was present for a significant argument. The messages, statement and a detailed memo was produced by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous pre-trials it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Threatening, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. S.G. and the complainant were separated but living under the same roof – still in the matrimonial home. An argument occurred between S.G. and his wife about who should leave the house. A day later S.G. was charged. He was arrested, placed on bail that prevented him from attending at the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the Application for Divorce filed by the complainant which included the allegations and sought exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. The core of the argument for sole custody of the assault allegations. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials, disclosed the family court material and negotiated a peace bond resolution. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.Y. (2020)

Charges of Utter Death Threats withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Unfortunately Y.Y. is intellectually disabled and during a frustrating period in his life at a special school, Y.Y. uttered threats to several students in the same program. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the most recent cognitive assessment and send Y.Y. for further assessment and conflict management therapy. Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown the cognitive assessments, and the therapy report. There were some elements of Y.Y. feeling bullied and Y.Y. was not coping well and not skilled enough to seek help. But after therapy had developed very good coping skills. The Crown agreed and withdrew the charges.

R. v. C.A. (2020)

Client was charged with Domestic Assault, Utter Threats and Mischief to Property. This case involved an allegation of the client assaulting his spouse at a hotel where an alleged affair was to take place. The client retained John Navarrete. After requesting the hotel video surveillance, and having the client complete counselling, Mr. Navarrete was able to show the weaknesses in the Crown’s case and the real possibility for the defence to argue of self-defence. All charges against the client were withdrawn and the client entered into a peace bond at the courthouse in Brampton.

R. v. E.P. (2020)

Client was charged with Assault, and Assault with Weapon for an alleged fight using a bat involving various individuals in a grocery parking lot. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent her on this serious charge. After hiring a private investigator and putting together various documents and videos from social media, Mr. Navarrete provided all materials for the Crown’s consideration and convince the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to withdraw the criminal charge against the client.

R. v. A.M. (2020)

Client charged with Assault, Resist Arrest and Theft Under $5,000. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and the surveillance of the grocery store which depicted a different picture than was contained in the criminal allegation. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-trial with the Crown Attorney’s office at 1000 Finch Ave West and was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all the criminal charges.

R. v. M.K. (2020)

Client was charged with Assault (X4) involving various incidents of alleged domestic assault against his spouse. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on these charges. Mr. Navarrete put together various documents including the civil action in India, video recordings, emails and text messages to establish that the spouse was possibly extorting the client for money. As a result, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges against the client at the courthouse at 1000 Finch Ave West, Toronto.

Regina v. AD (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault X2 and Utter Threats were withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. AD was in a relationship with the Complainant for almost two years. The Complainant alleged that AD assaulted her on two different occasions and threatened to kill her. John Navarrete and Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained to represent AD against the charges. After much back and forth with the Crown, John and Yuvika were able to show that the Complainant’s allegations were false. The Crown reviewed all materials disclosed by the defence, including e-mails and messages sent by Complainant trying to extort AD. Crown withdrew all charges as prospect of conviction was low.

Regina v. BC (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn. BC and the Complainant were international students who had been dating for almost a year and a half. While playing a card game, an argument ensued, and Complainant alleged that BC shoved her against a window by grabbing her collar. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri were retained as criminal defence lawyers for BC. Mariya and Yuvika reviewed disclosure diligently and conducted several pre-trials with the Crown. After extensive discussions, Crown agreed to withdraw charges on successful completion of counselling and allowing BC to sign a peace bond.

Regina v. AS (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Crown. The Complainant and AS were heavy alcohol drinkers. An argument erupted between them both one day and the Complainant was spotted at a traffic signal intoxicated. Police was notified and upon meeting her, Complainant alleged that AS grabbed her wrist and prevented her from leaving their residence. When police met AS, they observed that although AS was intoxicated as well, the Complainant left scratches and bruises on AS. She had no injuries on her. Mariya Protsenko and Yuvika Johri from Neuberger & Partners LLP were retained by AS. After extensive review of disclosure and negotiations with Crown, Crown agreed to withdraw charges against AS after successful competition of alcohol counselling.

Regina v. Y.S.Y. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Domestic Assault x 2, and Mischief, withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Y.S.Y, and the complainant were dating while attending U of T. At some point the relationship deteriorated and the two ended their relationship. When Y.S.Y. started dating another lady, Y.S.Y. had a number of encounters with Y.S.Y. during which she was highly aggressive. After the final encounter, Y.S.Y. complained to university security of sexual assault and assault allegations. The police were called and Y.S.Y. was charged. The university commenced an internal investigation into the allegations and if found to be true on a balance of probabilities, Y.S.Y. would have been expelled. Joseph Neuberger, and Mariya Protsenko were retained as Y.S.Y.’ s criminal defence lawyers. Immediately after reviewing the statement of the complainant, and extensive interview with the client, Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview six witnesses to the alleged assaults. Each statement was supportive of the defence position. In fact, the complainant’s own statement to police notes that the complainant went up to Y.S.Y. and struck him first and Y.S.Y. protected himself. However, for some reason the police still charged with a count of assault. All defence witness statements were provided to the Crown. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, represented Mr. Y.S.Y., in the university investigation. The client was interviewed in the presence of Joseph Neuberger, all defence interviews were turned over to the university investigator and the defence had opportunity to put evidence before the university investigation including a defence analysis of the evidence of the complainant. Eventually, the university investigation concluded that the complainant lacked credibility even on a balance of probabilities and noted that she had admitted to assaulting Mr. Y.S.Y. As such, Y.S.Y. succeeded in the university investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger then filed extensive writing materials with the Crown to address the lack of any reasonable prospect of conviction in the criminal case. In addition, a further judicial pre-trial was conducted and based upon principled discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges. ** It is important as a take-away from this case that for those students charged with domestic or sexual allegations with a fellow student and a university investigation is commenced, it is vital to be able to have proper legal advise and representation as the process is not the same as the criminal process and can also have life altering consequences if not properly handled.

Regina v. A.H. (2020)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. A.H. and the complainant had known each other for approximately five years. They remained in contact but never dated. An arrangement was made for the complainant to attend A.H.’s apartment to have drinks and catch up. The complainant was supposed to attend earlier in the evening but arrived around 1:00 a.m. with a backpack and her purse. The two drank and had a pleasant evening. A.H. showed pictures of his two sons who were living with him full time. At some point the complainant alleged that A.H. left the apartment to obtain GHB and returned and forced her to drink the GHB. In addition, the complainant alleged that she got sick, vomited and then A.H. tried to force himself on the complainant. The complainant refused to leave the apartment after A.H. had asked her to leave and then alleged that she could call police. A.H. video recorded some of their interaction and eventually the complainant left, called police and A.H. was charged with Sexual Assault and Administer Noxious Substance. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained text messages exchanged between the parties prior to and just after the complainant left the apartment. After leaving the complainant wrote in a text that she hopes his kids get kicked to the curb just like she was. Joseph Neuberger brought a motion under section 278 to admit the messages as evidence and the video recording. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of material inconsistencies between her two statements to police. In addition, detailed cross-examination was undertaken on what was captured on video and the text messaging. It appeared that the complainant had attended A.H.’s apartment to party and stay over. Joseph Neuberger prepared A.H. to testify. At trial A.H. testified that in fact the complainant had procured the GHB and drank it herself while using a bottle cap to dose out the GHB and not “G-out”. A.H. testified that all sexual contact was consensual but after he asked the complainant to leave and not stay over because he did not want his two boys waking up and meeting her, an argument broke out during which the complainant stated that she could just “call police and say he forced himself on her”. In fact, during cross-examination of the complainant on the video, right after A.H. requested the complainant to leave, the complainant said “ok then I will call the police.” The defence called other contradictory evidence to support the position that the complainant was not telling the truth about the evening. After extensive submissions, A.H. was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. T.H. (2020)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after five day trial. T.H. was a student in a University. T.H. and the complainant attended a friend’s house for a pre-drink prior to going to the bars. The house party went on for some hours and everyone played drinking games. Eventually T.H. and the complainant left the house and went back to his house. The two had intimate relations. The complainant woke up in T.H.’s house and did not remember the night. She spoke with T.H. who advised her that they had sex and about speaking about sex before being intimate. There were details about birth control and the complainant menstrating. The complainant left and over the course of a week spoke with friends and another female student who was at the house party. The conclusion was that she could not have consented and having been intoxicated she lacked the capacity to consent. The complainant sent a text to T.H. accusing him of sexual assault. T.H. replied and apologized and gave his version of the evening and sex. The complainant filed a complaint with the University and then the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his crininal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger put together a team from his office of John Navarrete and Diana Davison to work on the defence. At trial Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined all Crown witnesses to demonstrate their biased and wrongly held views on consent and capacity to consent and within that context their evidence was not reliable. There were many other areas of cross-examination after a successful 276 application about prior behavior of the complainant that undermined her evidence. For example the complainant alleged previous held attitudes about sex while menstruating; about sex for the first time with a man and her attitude of not being interested in T.H. that the Crown relied upon to demonstrate lack of consent. Cross-examination elicited evidence that directly contradicted these “attitudes” undermining the assertions of lack of consent. In relation to lack of capacity, Joseph Neuberger assailed the notion that an intoxicated party cannot consent. In fact an intoxicated consent is still consent. It may be that while intoxicated the complainant made choices that were not in her best interest and contrary to what she would normally do when sober but that in and of itself did not establish incapacity. Further, it became dangerously obvious that the “consent” education at the University was dramatically out of line with the law and infected the evidence with a skewed view of what actually took place the evening of the house party. Finally, underlying the evidence was an inherent bias about male sexual stereotypes that were improperly applied to the evidence including how it was used to frame T.H.’s text apology as a confession. After extensive written and oral submissions T.H. was found not guilty of sexual assault. To read the full text of the judgement

Regina v. K.W. (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn well prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket. K.W. and his wife were having marital issues. An argument erupted regarding finances of the family and relationship issues. The complainant wanted K.W. to leave the home and live somewhere else. When he refused, a 911 call was made by the complainant and K.W. was charged with Assault and Mischief. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. Shortly after the charges were laid, the complainant sent a letter to the Crown about the motive for calling the police. This was also send to Joseph Neuberger. In reviewing the statement and 911 call, it was apparent, as so often we see in these cases, more concern by the complainant about the relationship than issues about any type of domestic violence. A Zoom conference was set up with a judge and the assigned Crown. There were two children of the marriage and the parties wanted to reconcile. Joseph Neuberger arranged for joint marriage counselling and therapy on conflict management. After successful completion of the therapy, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.S. (2020)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Toronto. P.S. was married to the complainant for a short-term. It was an arranged marriage and upon immigrating to Canada multiple arguments arose regarding the relationship and finances of the marriage. On the date of separation, the complainant contacted police and alleged a historic sexual assault from earlier in the marriage. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence lawyers. Upon receiving the disclosure, the statement of the complainant demonstrated more concern over insignificant issues in the marriage than the sexual assault. During the criminal process, the complainant retained a family lawyer, and in the correspondence a demand for a lump sum was sought along with reference to the criminal charges. The client was referred to a family lawyer, and a defence on both fronts was marshalled. After some defence disclosure of information received through the family court process, extensive pre-trials took place and ultimately it was determined that the charge ought to be withdrawn in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.L. and X.L. (2020)

Charges of Assault x 5 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations, Ontario Court, Scarborough. C.L. and X.L. are son and mother and were charged with a domestic incident regarding C.L.’s girlfriend. Allegations stem form living together and a series of arguments culminating on the day of the charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer for both person accused. Once disclosure was received, Joseph Neuberger disclosed audio recorded arguments prior to the date of the offences showing a history of animus from the complainant and her father. It seemed that arguments centered around the living arrangement and the defence took the position that the alleged assaults were in fact a plan by the complainant to orchestrate a removal of C.L and X.L. from the home and an abatement of their portion of rent. Regardless, Joseph Neuberger conducted several pre-trials and given the nature of the offences, a peace bond resolution was worked out and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.R. (2020)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.R. was married to the complainant for over two decades. The marriage was coming to an end, and after a heated argument about selling the matrimonial house, the complainant contacted police when M.R. was at work. The complainant alleged an assault. M.R. was arrested, ordered to stay away from the matrimonial house and had no way of obtaining his belongings. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the family court documents, it became readily apparent the charge was used to gain leverage in the family court proceedings. Divorce proceedings had started prior to the charge. After the charge, the court pleadings were amended and the complainant alleged a history of abuse and then charge. Sadly, one of the children of the marriage had to be interviewed to determine what happened on the day of the alleged assault. The evidence did not corroborate the complainant’s version. After extensive discussions, prior to trial, an agreement was reached for M.R. to sign a peace bond and the charge would be withdrawn. The was agreed upon with no admission of any liability but was done to prevent one of the children having to testify at the trial. As such, the charge of assault was withdrawn.

R. v. W.Y. (2020)

The client was charged with Assault out of Newmarket courthouse. The client and the complainant have been married for many years and had two children in common. The tension between the client and the complainant started when the client’s mother has moved in with them. The complainant alleged that on one of the occasions, the client and her were arguing about the client’s mother and the client has slapped the complainant on her face. It was alleged that the client proceeded to close the complainant’s mouth and nose with his palm, choking her. The Crown took the allegations very seriously as choking was involved. The client retained Mariya Protsenko as a defence counsel. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who was hesitant to withdraw the charge, however, agreed to a lengthy adjournment for the client to attend counseling. The client completed very substantial amount of private counseling. In addition, the complainant provided a letter that she didn’t fear the client and wished for them to resume their relationship. After careful negotiations with the prosecutor, Mariya convinced him to withdraw the charge. The charge against the client was withdrawn.

R. v. M.H. (2020)

The client was charged with two counts of Domestic Assault. The client and the complainant were a married couple with a young child. The complainant alleged that a number of years ago the client had pushed the complainant while she was pregnant. In addition, the complainant alleged that the client has hit her in the stomach while they were arguing and the complainant fell as a result of the hit. The complainant ran from the apartment unit to the security desk, laid down on the floor crying and asking the security officer to call 911. The security office called police who attended, spoke to the complainant and arrested the client. The client retained Mariya Protsenko, of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The complainant retained her own counsel and advised Mariya that she wanted to reconcile with the client, however, she was unwilling to retract her allegations. Mariya spoke to the prosecutor who offered the client to complete an anger management course, PARS. The client has refused to do that and was willing to do couple’s counseling instead. The Crown agreed to vary the client’s bail order to allow him to partake in the couple’s counseling with the complainant. Upon the completion of the couple’s counseling, Mariya spoke to the prosecutor again which resulted in withdrawal of charges.

R. v. N. P. (2020)

The client was a respondent in a peace bond matter. The Applicant was the client’s son in law and there has been a long history of animosity between the two of them. The client’s daughter was going through a high conflict divorce with the Applicant as well as the Children Aid Society was involved. The Applicant audio recorded the client allegedly threatening him during agreed children drop off/pick up. The client retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners Criminal Defence Lawyers. The case involved numerous police occurrence reports, CAS’s reports, text and email correspondence. Once the hearing was scheduled, Mariya tirelessly prepared the client to testify as well as to be cross examined. Mariya also prepared the client’s daughter if additional witness was required. Mariya carefully crafted a cross examination for the Applicant and drafted submissions. During a hearing, Mariya successfully cross-examined the Applicant, re-cited case law and made submissions why the peace bond should not be issued against the client. The Justice of the Peace agreed with Mariya’s submissions and declined to issue a peace bond against her client. The peace bond Application was dismissed.

Regina v. P.J. (2020)

The client was charged with Domestic Assault. During the course of a dispute with his wife, the police were called and an allegation was made about physical contact. P.J. was arrested. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. The disclosure was received, and after detailed review and numerous pre-trials with the Crown, it was negotiated that the client would undertake a course of therapy and eventual joint marriage counselling. If the therapy was successful, the charge would be withdrawn with a peace bond. The therapy completed and was successful. The COVID-19 issue arose and the courts were having issues processing cases for people not in custody. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, entered into discussions with the assigned crown and after much back and forth it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn with no peace bond. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Z.Z. (2020)

Charges of Harassing Calls, Utter Death threats x 3, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. Z.Z. and his wife were having marriage difficulties. After a heated argument, apparently the complainant wife contacted police and charges were laid related to her and the two children. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. After an extensive interview with the client, it was discovered that the complainant had been having an affair for over two years and Z.Z. was very distraught and had been coerced into remaining in the marriage or he would not see his children again. On the date of the allegations, the complainant and Z.Z. were to meet over dinner and discuss their marriage. The complainant did not show up, and heated text messages were allegedly exchanged. Z.Z. took the two children to a movie. When he got home police were at the house and he was arrested, and put on conditions to have not contact with his family. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of various text messages that established the affair, and the threats to keep Z.Z. in the marriage. A request for a forensic review of the complainant’s cell phone to substantiate her allegations was not satisfied. The defence disclosed messages consisted with the defence position and after extensive discussions, the case was resolved for all charges being withdrawn, and Z.Z. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. H.C. (2020)

H.C. found not guilty after three-day judge alone trial, Toronto of Robbery with a Firearm. Someone had posted a fake escort advertisement and when the complainant showed up for his ‘date’, he was met by two masked robbers who pointed firearms at him and robbed him. The complainant could not provide clear identification of the robbers. All the police had to go on was the cellphone number that was used in the advertisement. A couple of weeks later, the police received a call from an anonymous tipster describing having been robbed in the same manner as the complainant with the robbers using the same fake advertisement for the escort and the same phone number. The tipster indicated that he had been instructed by the robbers to attend a particular address. The police went to the area and located H.C. and his co-accused sitting in a vehicle. The police arrested them. They located two firearms and the cellphone with the phone number used in the fake advertisements. The police acquired the phone records for the cellphone. Though it was registered to a fake name, the phone was used to make several calls to family members of H.C. Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. In discussions with the Crown, the Crown felt it was a “slam dunk” against H.C. but that they did not have sufficient evidence against H.C.’s co-accused and eventually withdrew against him prior to trial. The Crown was very confident and did not understand why H.C. was not pleading guilty. After all, the phone that was used to set up the robberies made repeated calls to H.C.’s family in the month of the robberies, H.C. was found in a vehicle with the cellphone in question, with H.C. and two firearms. In the Crown’s opinion, this was slam dunk. However, under careful scrutiny, the evidence melted away. The Crown was unable to call the evidence that the cellphone was used on the night H.C. was arrested to set up an identical robbery to the one he was on trial for. The reason was that the anonymous tipster’s statements to the police was hearsay and thus inadmissible. The relevance of the two firearms found in the car on night of the arrest was not relevant to proving the identity of the robbers. The firearms used on the night of the robbery were described differently than those located in the car on the night of the arrest. The Crown failed to appreciate that the co-accused – the one whom the Crown ultimately withdrew against – was H.C.’s cousin. The defence was able to establish that it was common for H.C.’s cousin to contact his extended family members by phone. How then could we be sure that the phone belonged to H.C. and not his former co-accused? Both equally had access to the phone that was linked to the robbery. In the end, the judge found H.C. not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. D.T. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault,  Sexual Interference, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Obtaining Services for Consideration of Person under 18, Make and Possess Child Pornography all withdrawn at start of trial.  The client was on a website known as Secret Benefits and had contacted someone advertising as a 19 year old.  One thing led to another and a few days after being at D.T.’s residence police attended for an unrelated issue and it was discovered that the complaintant was under 18. At all times the complainant represented herself as at least 18 years of age. However D.T. was charged with various offences arising from his activities with the complainant.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. The crown operated on the basis that D.T. had to take “all reasonable steps” to verify the age of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the messaging and posts relevant to establish that the complaintant represented herself and answered questions consistent with being 18 and 19. The case law does not establish that requesting and checking the person’s identification is necessary. D.T. did take reasonable steps and as such all charges withdrawn.

Regina v. P.G. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn after extensive preliminary hearing. P.G. was in early stages of dating the complainant and the two had sexual interaction. After P.G. failed to contact the complainant, the complaintant concluded, in her mind, that she was sexually assaulted during two dates with P.G. and went to the police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer and the firm’s senior paralegal Grace Condello assisted with the defence.  Diligent defence work resulted in obtaining through disclosure and data recovery of the complainant’s phone text messages including critical evidence of messages between the complainant and her friend about P.G. “Ghosting” the complainant and how upset she was. Also the complainant with the assistance of her friend set up fake Facebook book accounts and posted remarks regarding the complaintant and threatened him via Facebook messaging.  The complainant after all of the messaging then had gone to police and laid the charges. Thus, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger uncovered solid evidence that the allegations were made as a result of the complainant feeling jilted by P.G. During cross examination at the preliminary hearing the complainant was challenged on all of the defence evidence and it then became obvious that the complaintant was not credible nor reliable about the allegations.  As a result the charges were withdrawn.
Note:  Sadly the federal government’s new legislation amending the Criminal Code under Bill C 51 and Bill C 75 will now make this type of defence much more difficult. The new amendments eliminate preliminary hearings for sexual assault cases. Also because of Bill C 51 lawyers will have to disclose and argue at a hearing the relevance of all the messages and Facebook messaging that was so important in this case.  Thus from now on the complainant will get full disclosure from the defence well prior to trial of such evidence and can argue it is not relevant and ought to be excluded. As well there are no more preliminary hearings . Such changes are a shameful attack on due process and the ability of anyone accused, male or female, to make full answer and defence.  In this case, solid defence work uncovered clear evidence of motive to fabricate and in the future the ability to defend has become a greater challenge.  That is why experience is necessary to defend sexual assault charges.

Regina v. M.C. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under withdrawn on day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  The client and the complainant had been married for nine years.  The couple had been arguing for years about various issues including finances.  In October of 2018 the couple had an argument after the complainant made a comment about M.C. being fat.  The complainant alleged that she was assaulted and later that day called police. The client was charged with offences also dating back a few months and then in 2016.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  About a month after, the complainant brough an Application in family court for divorce but also sought sole custody.  M.C. was limited to what time he could spend with the two children.  Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court material, the disclosure and additional material from the client about exchanges that suggested there was a rift in the marriage for some time as the complainant had been very aggressive about what M.C. should be doing for her financially and that the complainant had been sending money to her family via a separate account without M.C,.’s knowledge.  Extensive time was spent with M.C. preparing him for trial and developing cross examination.  Certain material was disclosed by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger to the Crown suggesting that the allegations were motivated by gaining leverage in a family court proceeding to not only have sole custody but also substantial child support.  At trial, the Crown considered all of the evidence and agreed to withdraw all charges if the client signed a common law peace bond.  The result was in the best interests of bringing down conflict so both the complainant and M.C. could bring their family law matter to a close and for the client to obtain shared custody.  As such, M.C. signed a common law peace bond and the charges of Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Theft Under were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. A.F.S. (2020)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3, and Threaten Death, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, at trial.  The complainant had charged the client on four (4) previous occasions and each time sought that the accused ought to receive a peace bond.   On this occasion, an argument erupted regarding my client wanting to end the marriage.  The complainant had discovered a letter noting that A.F.S. had retained a family lawyer.  The complainant called police and alleged new Assault and Threatening charges.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer Toronto on the file.  Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure on all of the prior charges and subpoenaed the pictures of the client’s injuries from one occurrence and obtained the Affidavits of the complainant provided on two of the prior charges were the complainant averred that she fabricated the allegations to avoid being charged by A.F.S.  It appears that A.F.S. had indeed been assaulted more than once by the complainant.  Once all of this material was gathered, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the material to the Crown.  Oddly the Crown at first took the position that the evidence was collateral and not relevant.  Joseph Neuberger responded that a pattern of fabrication cannot be “collateral” and is a direct impugnment of the complainant’s credibility.  At trial, further discussions took place and eventually all charges were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. J.T. (2020)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 and Sexual Interference x 2 withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice Scarborough.   J.T. was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter on at least two occasions when J.T. was intoxicated.  The allegations were only disclosed two years after they were supposed to have occurred.  J.T. retained defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges.  CAS had been involved in the investigation, and after a few months, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain the entire CAS file, and after careful review the notes of the youth worker seemed to suggest that the complainant had not only recanted early after the police took the statement but that the allegations arose after a period of parental discipline by J.T. that the complainant deemed too harsh and restrictive of her social life.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the relevant notes during a judicial pre-trial to a judge and the Crown.  It was interesting the CAS never felt it necessary to directly communicate these facts to the Crown or police.  After continued discussions, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference were withdrawn.

 

Regina v. M.F.S. (2020)

Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, and Threatening x 2 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto.  M.F.S. was intoxicated one night with his former girlfriend. During an argument about him possibly having been unfaithful to her, she directed M.F.S. to contact via text and phone a former friend of hers to impersonate someone and intimidate and harass the complainant.  This went on for several days during which the complainant contacted police and eventually M.F.S. was identified as the culprit and arrested.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer to defend the charges.  Joseph Neuberger had an investigator take a statement from M.F.S. former girlfriend, and indeed, she confessed to orchestrating the event and coercing M.F.S. while he was quite intoxicated.  Joseph Neuberger sent the client for therapy as to his susceptibility to such an offence and alcohol counselling.  During the therapy, the forensic psychologist interviewed the former girlfriend who again confirmed her involvement.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the therapy report and the interview of the girlfriend to the Crown assigned and it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn if M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond.  Thus, all charges were withdrawn and M.F.S. signed a common law peace bond.

 

Regina v. W.W. (2019)

Charges of Assault x 3, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic) all withdrawn at first court appearance.  W.W. was confronted by his girlfriend about an alleged affair (she misread a text message) and the girlfriend/complainant severely assaulted W.W.  W.W. called 911.  W.W. went to hospital with a gash to his left eyebrow, multiple abrasions and a possible concussion.  W.W. gave a brief statement to police at the hospital but the complainant gave a video recorded statement at the police station at the same time.  When released from the hospital, W.W. was charged with assaulting his girlfriend.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger obtained the medical records and pictures of the injuries of W.W.  Joseph Neuberger drafted a detailed disclosure letter not only seeking disclosure but a detailed response to how a decision was made to charge his client.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also provided the medical records and pictures in support and suggested in the letter that not only was his client wrongfully accused, but there was an obvious gender bias that can result in a lawsuit.  On the first appearance the Crown withdrew all charges.

 

Regina v. H.T. (2019)

Client found not guilty after trial on a single count of breaching a section 161 order.  H.T. had plead guilty in 2015 to offences related to sexual interference and sexual assault.  A section 161 order was made for a term of five years.  One prohibition was to not apply for work related to anyone under the age of 16.  H.T. had applied for a job to tutor, but had thought it was just for editing of papers of University Students. The person offering the position, went to police alleging that H.T. had applied for a tutor position that could involve students ages 8 and up.  Joseph Neuberger as retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the case.  Joseph Neuberger sourced out the website of the tutoring company, the job description and retrieved from the client all email exchanges.  Aside from disclosure that was provided, it became apparent that the complainant and her business marketed to university students, and in fact the position was not posted on the website and the complainant could not recall if at any time any mention was made of students other than students in University.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and another employee of the tutoring business and it was established that the complainant was not forthright about what position was offered, and in fact misrepresented what the position was that H.T. had applied for.  There was no mention nor evidence that H.T. applied to tutor anyone other than university level students.  Without going into other detail, cross-examination revealed that the complainant simply took it upon herself to allege something that in fact was not an accurate reflection of the job or H.T.’s application.  H.T. was found not guilty at trial as H.T. had obeyed the strict terms of the 161 order and not breached the order.

 

Regina v. O.I. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after successful negotiations at the Judicial pre-trial stage, Ontario Court of Justice, Barrie. An argument between a husband and wife culminated in the husband allegedly hitting the wife on her head in front of their children. The altercation was reported by the father of the wife with the wife providing a statement. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained to represent O.I. on the assault charge.  Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and found numerous issues in the wife’s statement.  After three extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko conducted a Judicial pre-trial at which time it was agreed that the prospect of conviction was low and the client entered into into a peace bond and the charge was formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. Y.Z. (2019)

Directed verdict of not guilty granted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket on charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, and Sexual Interference x 2.  The client had been married to his wife, Y.W, for over 9 years and there was a daughter, who was the complainant in this case.  In August of 2018 the complainant came forward with allegations that in 2015 Y.Z. had touched her breast and then for the balance of 2015 and 2016 had committed various acts of touching in her bedroom.  These allegations came forward right at the time that Y.Z. and his wife were having extensive arguments about his son from a previous marriage coming to Canada to live with them.  These arguments were so disruptive that the Y.Z and his wife longer shared a bedroom and agreed to separate in August of 2018.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements, and obtained from the client a detailed history and chronology of all events from their marriage up his date of charge. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents, and messages between Y.Z. and his wife.  While the case was ongoing, new disclosure was provided of a partial recording made by the wife in August of 2018 where she questioned him about the alleged sexual assault.  The recording was less than one minute and cut off at the end.  At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant about the allegations and established inconsistencies and implausible facts.  However, Joseph Neuberger had court break early and so the mother, Mr. Y.Z. would testify the next day.  Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger suspected that the complainant and her mother would speak over night prior to the mother/wife testifying.  The next day the mother testified and Joseph Neuberger vigorously cross-examined her, showing first that it was obvious that the complainant and her mother had spoken about the cross-examination thus showing collusion, and second, the recording was obviously cut off.  Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the recording and the complainant insisted it was a confession by Y.Z. and that he had not denied the allegations.  However, under cross-examination she admitted that what she had turned over to the police was only a small part of a nine (9) minute recording.  Thus, court was adjourned as a police officer attended at the mother’s residence and retrieved a copy of the full and complete recording.  After careful review with the Crown, it was apparent that the mother, Y.W., had lied to the court and the police about the nature of the recording and in fact a full transcript of the recording showed that Y.Z. had indeed denied the allegations and the mother only gave what portion she wanted to provide to the police to try and convince them that he had admitted the offence.  Thus, the Crown assessed the case and based on the evidence arising from cross-examination invited the Court to enter not guilty verdicts on all charges.

 

Regina v. J.S. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdraw prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  J.S. was charged after an argument with an owner of a competing restaurant in a mall.  J.S. was alleged to have struck the complainant several times.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer.  There was no video surveillance from the mall and the disclosure on the case was very slim.  There were no injuries to the complainant.  Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to take some statements from employees of other restaurants who may have witnessed the incident. The statements disclosed that in fact the complainant instigated the event. These statements were turned over to the Crown.  After several discussions, it was agreed that the charge would be withdrawn and J.S. would sign a common law peace bond.  As such, the charge of Assault was formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. Z.C. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after negotiations with the Crown.  The client was charged with having assaulted her boyfriend during a heated argument about their relationship. The boyfriend did sustain injuries.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  He sent the client to therapy with an expert in domestic violence and asked the client to complete community service.  A report was provided to the Crown along with the letter of community service.  After two pre-trials with the Crown, an agreement was reached to withdraw the charge and the client would sign a common law peace bond.  Accordingly, the charge of Domestic Assault was withdrawn.

 

Regina v. K.W. (2019)

Client acquitted after an eight day jury trial in Toronto, Superior Court, of charges of Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Weapons Dangerous, Use Imitation Firearm, Assault Causing Bodily Harm.   The client was in a one year relationship and in November of 2016 he moved in with his girlfriend, one of the complainants.  K.W. left for China in December to visit family and while away complainant number one sent text messages breaking up with him and telling him that she has packed all of his belongings and place them in his car.  This happened to have included a bb gun.  When K.W. arrived home he had discovered that she had removed $6,000.00 from his account.  K.W. went to confront his girlfriend and she did not want to speak.  He left but then returned about half an hour later after she contacted him about their cat.  He returned and was confronted by her new boyfriend.  A fight broke out and police were eventually called and the client was charged with several offences.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  K.W. was initially charged with use firearm, however, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired an expert, and established that the projectile speed was less than that found by the police expert and the charge was down graded to imitation firearm.  Further, a defence investigator was hired to take additional statements.  Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a preliminary hearing and cross-examined the two complainants in a manner toward developing the defence. It was very help and then in preparation for trial spend considerable time preparing the client to testify and drafting the cross-examinations of all of the Crown witnesses.  After two days of deliberations, the jury found K.W. not guilty on all charges, including Domestic Assault, Assault with Weapon, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Use Imitation Firearm and Weapons Dangerous.

 

Regina v. A.S. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto.  A.S. was ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The two had been living together for a short period of time.  The complainant still maintained her own apartment.  An argument erupted over why the relationship was ending and when A.S. requested the complainant to leave his apartment, she refused and a pushing match commenced.  The complainant called police and A.S. was charged with two counts of Assault and Mischief to her cell phone.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend A.S.  When Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure including the statement of the complainant and police officer notes, there was inconsistency between the description of the two assaults and the complete lack of any injury and damage to clothing.  The cell phone was intact as well.  Several pre-trials were held and A.S. agreed to take a course of counselling directed at conflict resolution and after successful completion of the course, the charges were withdrawn and A.S. signed a common law peace bond.

 

Regina v. M.C. (2019)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn on eve of second set of motions for records of the complainant’s psychiatric records.  M.C. met the complainant on the dating site Plenty of Fish. The two engaged in highly suggestive messaging and then arranged to meet for an intimate encounter.  M.C. attended the complainant’s residence and engaged in relations.  After, the complainant became angry at M.C. and then later called police and he was charged with sexual assault.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with the disclosure, and the client reviewing the events.  In addition, he obtained the text messages between the parties, that were extremely helpful for cross-examination.  However, just prior to the first trial date, the complainant made several posts on social media that raised significant issues regarding her mental at the time of the alleged offence.  A private investigator was hired to do a complete social media investigation with a tech expert and as a result the defence brought a third party records motion for her psychiatric records. The motion was adjourned as was the original trial date.  A second Application was filed for the records and just prior to the hearing of the applications the charge was withdrawn. Some of the mental health issues were relevant as they related to perception but also to issues of manipulation by the complainant.  As a result the complainant did not want to participate in the trial anymore and the Crown withdrew the charges.

 

R v. Y. X. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates in Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. A verbal argument escalated into a physical altercation at traffic court. The altercation was observed by police officers at a traffic courthouse and Y.X. was arrested for domestic assault on the spot. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained as his criminal defence lawyer to represent Y.X. on the charge. Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and uncovered a number of issues with the evidence against the client including potential violation of constitutional right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The client was not provided a Mandarin interpret at the police station and could not fully appreciate the rights being explained to her. After an extensive pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko convinced the Crown that only one hour of counseling was required before the charge was to be withdrawn. After a completion of brief counseling, the charge was formally withdrawn.

R. v. L.G. (2019)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after several pre-trials with the prosecutor in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The complainant, L.G.’s wife, was upset with L.G. for smoking inside the house. They had an argument and L.G allegedly pushed the complainant to the floor. The complainant tried to get up, however, L.G. kept pushing her so that she would stay down. The complainant also indicated to the prosecutor assigned to this matter that she was tortured and tormented by L.G. throughout many years and that she wanted to proceed to a trial. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained by the client on this matter. Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the persecutor including face to face meetings and conversations at the courthouse. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge against L.G upon him entering into a common law peace bond. No volunteer work or counseling was required. L.G. attended Scarborough courthouse with Mariya and upon entering into a common law peace bond, his charge was

 

Regina v. C.J. and A.J.C. (2019)

Charges of Assault and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  C.J. and A.J.C. were driving together and there was a road incident with another car that then followed them to a mall parking lot.  Once out of the cars an argument ensued and a physical altercation.  Part of the altercation was captured by video surveillance from local stores.   Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete were retained as the defence lawyers.  After a careful review of the surveillance, there were some frames that were enhanced by the defence which appeared to show the complainant making gestures prior to the physical altercation that could be viewed as assaultive and there could be an argument for self-defence on top of the fact that the complainant had followed C.J, and A.J.C. to the parking lot.  After two judicial pre-trials, an agreement was reached for all parties to take some anger management counseling related to road rage and at the end of the therapy it was agreed all charges would be withdrawn.  Once the therapy was completed the charges were formally withdrawn.

 

Regina v. M.Y. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown.  The complainant and M.Y. were in the midst of a separation.  An argument erupted over an issue about support.  The complainant called police and alleged that M.Y. had pushed her and grabbed her.  M.Y. was arrested, and ordered to have no contact and not return to the home.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  During the course of the criminal proceeding, the complainant wrote to the Crown that she wished to reconcile and have marriage counselling.  This was communicated to Joseph Neuberger.  Joseph Neuberger spoke with his client and he was in favour of marriage counselling and reconciliation.  Joseph Neuberger had several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney and worked out a therapy program for M.Y. that would then turn into marriage counselling. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after M.Y. completed 12 sessions successfully.  This was done, and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.C. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown.  J.C. was charged by his soon to be former wife with domestic violence allegations arising from an argument over separation. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer.  Once disclosure was received and thoroughly reviewed, it became apparent that the purported assault would have resulted in severe injuries yet, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met on three occasions with the assigned Crown and negotiated a withdrawal if the client completed a program of anger management and conflict management therapy.  After successful completion, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. G.L. (2019)

Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn prior to trial.  G.L. was alleged to have been highly intoxicated at a bar and was involved in a fight that resulted in some injury to the complainant and damage to the bar.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger sought the video surveillance from inside the bar, and even though the surveillance video was not the best quality, it appeared that G.L. was attacked first due to some verbal argument.  Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for alcohol abuse therapy and tendered the report and the surveillance video to the Crown.  After a fruitful pre-trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. H.B. (2019)

Client found not guilty after two day trial in Newmarket, Ontario Court of Justice, of charges of Luring x 4, and Communicating to obtain the sexual services of a minor x 2, all arising from the police project Raphael.   H.B. was 52 years of age at the time and had looked at the backpages for an escort.  He eventually made arrangements to meet two service providers at a hotel and was arrested as it was alleged that he was communicating with an undercover officer pretending to be a 14 year old escort.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  When Joseph Neuberger took over the file, an extensive meeting with the client yielded information about issues with the client’s phone and he having contacted other service providers.  The police provided in disclosure only the texts messages between the undercover and Mr. H.R. The cell phone extraction report from the police similarly only had messages between H.R. and the undercover officer.  Joseph Neuberger sought an Order releasing the seized phone to the defence to have it forensically reviewed by the defence expert.  The defence expert provided an extraction report that included all other calls and messages between H.R. and other service providers and demonstrated that some messages were truncated and not clear.  The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the defence expert material and also prepared a Compilation Report that included all communications over a two hour period to provide full context to the communications with the undercover officer.  The evidence established that H.R. was confused between two numbers both having area codes of 289 one of which was the undercover officer.  There were numerous messages and it was not a simple back and forth between the officer and H.R. but rather extended well over one hour and 34 minutes.  Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger spent over 70 hours with H.R. preparing him to testify.  At trial, the defence extraction report, and the Compilation Report provided strong evidence to support H.R.’s evidence. The court found that H.R.’s evidence, although having its credibility issues, was not unbelievable and thus raised a reasonable doubt that he knew the alleged age of the pretend escort. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all six charges.

R. v. M.T. (2019)

M.T. was originally charged with attempt murder in relation to astabbing incident at a local sports bar and detained in custody. M.T.’s family immediately retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke to the Crown about the defence position of self-defence regarding the incident in order to obtain bail. Shortly after Crown received the video surveillance of the sports bar which confirmed the triable issue of self defence and thereby consented to client’s release and reduced the charge from attempt murder to aggravated assault, utter threat and carry concealed weapon. Mr. Navarrete later conducted a narrow and focused preliminary hearing cross
examining the alleged victim of the stabbing. Ultimately, the matter went to trial by judge and jury in the  Superior Court of Justice located at 361 University Ave. After a two-week trial where the Crown called over 7 witnesses and Mr. Navarrete called M.T. to describe his self-defensive actions, the client was acquitted of aggravated assault and carry a concealed weapon by the jury and only convicted for uttering a threat. The
client received a conditional discharge as his sentence for that charge.

R. v. R.C. (2019)

R.C. was charged with assault (X4), forcible confinement, sexual assault and breach of probation against his “on and off” again girlfriend. It was alleged that R.C. bound up his girlfriend and held her against her will for over 5 hours, sexually assaulted her and physically hit her. R.C. initially retained Christopher Assie to represent him on this charge and various other related charges involving the same complainant. Mr. Assie conducted a thorough and clinical preliminary inquiry involving cross examining the complainant on various text messages and Facebook postings. R.C.’s matter then was elevated to the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave
where a one-week trial took place before a judge alone with Mr. John Navarrete as his counsel. Mr. Assie and Mr. Navarrete worked collaboratively to ensure that key points of the preliminary inquiry were raised at trial for the benefit of the client. Mr. Navarrete cross examined the complainant on the various postings and text messages and various other issues and met with the client in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre on several occasions to ensure that he was properly prepared to testify at his own trial. The jury found R.C. not guilty on all charges.

Regina v. N.O. (2019)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  N.O. had met the complainant on Ashley Madison and started an intimate relationship.  On one night the complainant alleged an act occurred during their sexual encounter where she withdrew consent but all other contact was consensual.  N.O. hired Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client over 300 messages before and after the alleged sexual assault that provided an extremely rich foundation for cross-examination of the complainant including her intention to meet up with N.O. that night to get drunk and high and forget the evening which went directly to her reliability as a witness. Other messages showed animus after the alleged event due to her financial situation and a friend who also attended the evening and trashed her car.  At trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant and established key inconsistencies and issues related to her reliability. Joseph Neuberger and his team spent considerable time preparing N.O. for his testimony.  At the end of the trial N.O.’a evidence was sufficient to raise more than a reasonable doubt on the main issue and as such N.O. was acquitted of the charge.

Regina v. F.L. (2019)

Charge of assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket, after extensive discussions with the Crown.  F.L. was involved in an altercation during his son’s soccer game where a major physical dispute broke out.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  After obtaining disclosure, it was astonishing that the only statements taken were from the team of the complainant and the family of the complainant’s.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation gathering other statements and eventually disclosed the statements to the Crown.  The Crown determined that there was not reasonable prospect of conviction.  As such the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. H.D. (2019)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial date.  H.D. was in the midst of a highly contentious separation and in order to remove him from the matrimonial home, the complainant made a allegation of domestic assault.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  After reviewing the statement of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger drafted a memo on the massive inconsistencies and implausibility of the allegations and disclosed the memo to the Crown.  After discussions with the Crown, the charge was withdrawn and the client entered into a common law peace bond.

Regina v. A.K. (2019)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial after two days of cross examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant.  A.K. was alleged over several years to have sexually abused young lady who came to his house for many years and was friends with A.K.’s children.  Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Mariya Protsenko, were retained as the defence team.   Detailed interviews were done with all family members and then detailed preparation of them for testimony.  Joseph Neuberger meticulously dissected the statement of the complainant in constructing his cross-examination of the complainant.  At trial Joseph Neuberger exposed the implausibility of many of the allegations, the vagueness of the allegations and drew out numerous inconsistencies in addition to establishing that by day two of the cross the complainant had been coached on how to answer questions.  After the cross examination, the Crown took the position that the evidence of the complainant no longer was capable of supporting a reasonable prospect of conviction and as such all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. F.Z. (2019)

Client acquitted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket of Domestic Assault.  F.Z. had an argument with the complainant regarding his belief that she was unfaithful to him.  The complainant alleged that F.Z. had pushed her down onto a bed and choked her for at least 10 minutes.  During the altercation, F.Z. sustained a serious tear to his groin area requiring 12 stitches.  F.Z. called police but was charged.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  Joseph Neuberger, Paralegal Grace Condello and senior clerk Daisy Zhang conducted extensive client interviews and obtained the client’s medical records related to the injuries he sustained including a bite mark to his finger, and pictures of the injuries.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger referred the client to a family lawyer as the complainant had applied for divorce and immediately sought sole custody of their two children.  Detailed review of the evidence of the complainant was conducted, including the photographs of her injuries.  The injuries showed only a scratch to on side of her neck, abrasions to her right clavical and a swollen right eye.  Extensive time was spent with the client preparing him for trial.  In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the family lawyer the Family Court pleadings.  At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on her motivation to seek sole custody and that obtaining a conviction in the criminal case would help her with obtaining sole custody, thus illuminating a motive to fabricate.  Further, detailed cross-examination of the alleged sequence of the alleged assault was reviewed and the complainant could not or would not explain her injuries as they did not correlate with the manner in which she described the assault.  Under cross-examination there were other crucial admissions from the complainant that undermined her reliability.  F.Z. testified and described that in fact he was attacked and defended himself. The manner of the attack and his defence described matched the injuries of both parties.  After extensive submissions, the defence succeeded and the client was found not guilty.

Regina v. X.L.S. (2019)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault causing bodily harm x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.  The client was at a well attended Karaoke bar in Markham when an argument broke out between her friends and another group. A physical altercation occurred and the client was charges with having used a beer bottle to assault two complainants.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained.  After extensive review of the disclosure and interviews of the security staff at the bar, it was apparent that two male parties were involved in the assault and not X.L.S.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed the interviews and related evidence to establish that for an ulterior motive his client was falsely accused.  After extensive pre-trials the Crown agreed that the charges ought to be stayed.

Regina v. C.D. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn in Toronto prior to trial. The client and the complainant were in relationship for two years that was very tumultuous. On the day in question, the complainant kicked C.D. out of the apartment. While packing, the two parties got into an argument. The complainant started to video record C.D. C.D. grabbed at the cell phone, struggled and then threw the phone on the ground. The complainant called 911 and C.D. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. C.D. had a history of mental health issues. Joseph Neuberger retained a therapist to work with the complainant who was also experiencing serious anxiety. A report was tendered to the assigned Crown, and it was agreed that the charge ought to be withdrawn. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina. T.Z. (2019)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2, and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. T.Z. was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend and held her in their apartment not allowing her to leave during an argument about an alleged affair. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Similar to other cases, the pictures and medical records disclosed by the Crown did not correspond with the manner in which the assault was alleged to have occurred. However, there was significant damage to the apartment. Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger arranged for T.Z. to take therapy, complete community service and pay restitution for damage to property. As a result of the excellent therapy report and deficiencies with the evidence of the complainant the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.M. (2019)

Charges of Threatening Death and Cruelty to Animal withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having threatened to kill his spouse during an argument. His former spouse also claimed that T.M. had killed her dog by kicking it to death. She claimed that T.M. had confessed to the crime. T.M. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. Counsel conducted a judicial pre-trial and ultimately scheduled a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, counsel had provided the Crown with evidence that the complainant had recanted her testimony and pointed that the evidence that the Crown wished to introduce regarding the bad character evidence of T.M. was inadmissible. Prior to the trial date, the Crown re-assessed the reasonable prospect of conviction in light of the new evidence they had and they simply withdrew the charges.

Regina v. D.A. (2019)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. D.A. was charged with assaulting a teenager at a gym. D.A. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. After reviewing the disclosure and conducting several meetings with a Crown, Mr. Assié convinced the Crown to withdraw the charges in exchange for the D.A. entering into a peace bond.

Regina v. N.R. (2019)

N.R. was charged with domestic assault and uttering threat against his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. N.R. had gone to pick up his son at his ex-girlfriend’s house as part of family law access rights. When he arrived, it is alleged that he threatened the new boyfriend, and a physical argument ensued involving N.R., and his ex-girlfriend in front of his son. After several discussions between Mr. John Navarrete and the Crown Attorney`s office at 2201Finch Ave West about the inconsistencies in the complainant`s police statement and issues of credibility, the Crown decided to withdraw the charge against the accused upon successful completion of the PAR program by N.R. and his signing of a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. T.C. (2019)

T.C. was charged with assault against his wife after they had a public argument at a café. T.C. and his wife had been having various family issues including financial and extended family problems. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown Pre-trials and Judicial Pre-trials with the Crown Attorney`s office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete realizing that this was a strong Crown case given that it was witnessed by the public, embarked on a strategy that would demonstrate to the Crown that T.C. was not a public threat. This strategy included counselling among other things. Ultimately, the Crown withdrew the charges against T.C. and the client signed a section 810 peace bond.

Regina v. K.L. (2019)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in Newmarket Court.  K.L. was charged with having grabbed and pushed his wife into their car.  A witness alleged that he heard her screaming and being forcibly pushed into the car.  Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained as defence lawyers.  After receiving the disclosure, it became clear that the wife did not cooperate with police and the prosecution was based on the witness’ observations.  A statement was taken from the wife who stated that all physical contact was with her consent. The statement was provided to the Crown.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial with the Crown and advised the Crown that thers is no assault if the wife consented to the contact. In law to prove an assault there must be non-consensual touching. As such, persons can consent to touching so long as it does not result in bodily harm. Thus, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. X.M. (2019)

Three counts of domestic assault withdrawn in Newmarket court.  The client was alleged to have engaged in an argument with his girlfriend that became physical.  The complainant called police and alleged domestic abuse including being grabbed, hit and pushed down on the floor over the course of a ten minute altercation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend X.M. After reviewing the disclosure, it became apparent that the manner as described by the complainant of the assaults did not match the fact that the complaintant had absolutely no visible injury.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger entered into extensive discussions with the Crown.  Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for private counseling after which all charges were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.

Regina v. A.S. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Interference and Sexual Assault withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. A.S. was 71 years of age at the time he was accused of hugging and touching a 12 year old girl in an elevator. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired to defend Mr. A.S. Joseph Neuberger watched the video surveillance and carefully read the complaint’s statement. A couple of comments allegedly said by A.S. to the complainant concerned Joseph Neuberger about a possible cognitive issue as a reason for the allged offence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist to assess A.S. A CT scan was carried out and after a detailed assessment there was a real issue of really dementia. After disclosing the Assessment reports and extensive negotiations it was agreed that the charges would be withdrawn and the client to sign a common law peace bond. As such all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. C.M. (2018)

Client charged with Sexual Assault involving a female friend on New Year’s Eve at the complainant’s residence while her parents were home. C.M. retained Mr. John Navarrete as his lawyer. At trial, Mr. Navarrete embarked on an extensive cross-examination of the complainant at trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 1000 Finch Ave West. Mr. Navarrete established that the relationship included ‘casual sex’ among friends, that the complainant had asked her father to drive the client home after the alleged sexual assault, that the complainant had made the client breakfast after the alleged sexual assault, and that the complainant never mentioned anything to her parents or sought immediate help. In addition, despite the complainant’s testimony that she was afraid of the complainant after the alleged sexual assault, she in fact went shopping with him a month later and they took selfies of themselves “playing and hanging out” at her parent’s home. Ultimately, the trial judge found C.M. not guilty as the aforementioned evidence along with the client’s testimony of consent raised a reasonable doubt.

Regina v. S.I. & S.D. (2018)

The two clients were charged with Assault and Assault with a Weapon on the same complainant. All three parties were roommates. The complainant claimed that on two separate occasions, both accused had assaulted him and hit him with a broom. Both clients retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. It was clear to counsel from reviewing the complainant’s statement to the police that there was more to the complainant’s story. Counsel discovered that there a total of 9 people living in the house where the assaults allegedly occurred. Counsel conducted a defence investigation and interviewed several of the other roommates. The roommates provided very different accounts of how the altercations arose. Furthermore, they were able to describe other very serious and dangerous behaviour that the complainant had engaged in – including threatening the clients with a knife. Counsel had three roommates provide Affidavits describing what they witnessed during the alleged incidents. Counsel disclosed the Affidavits to the Crown and convinced the Crown to simply withdraw the charges in exchange for peace bonds.

Regina v. G.J. (2018)

Charges of criminal harassment with drawn. Client was alleged with stalking his neighbour. The client vehemently denied the behaviour described by the complainant. The client hired Christopher Assie as his defence lawyer at Neuberger & Partners LLP. Given the unreasonableness of the complainant in this case and the fact that they were neighbours, counsel suggested that even if the Crown offered a peace bond, that this is one of those rare instances where the accused should not consider agreeing. By entering into a peace bond, it would provide the complainant with an ability to have the client charged with breaching the peace bond upon a flimsy pretext. After multiple Crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials, the Crown finally agreed that the matter was not in the public interest to pursue. The charges were withdrawn. Client did not have to enter into a peace bond.

Regina v. R.K. (2018)

Charges of Utter Threats and Domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and R.K. were married and had one child together. The two divorced several years ago and R.K. was the primary caregiver for their child. There years of conflict between the two ensued after the divorce. During a drop off of the child the complainant and R.K. got into an argument about R.K. going on a trip with their child. When he left, the complainant called police alleging he assaulted and threatened her. R.K. was charged. He was then placed on bail and had difficulty with access to the child. The complainant immediately changed the school for the child and hired a family lawyer to restrict his parenting time even though since divorce he was the primary parent and not a hint of any issue about his parenting. R.K. retained Joseph Neuberger as his criminal defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained the disclosure, had the complaint’s statement transcribed and then interviewed R.K. CAS wanted to meet with R.K. and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the meeting. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the statement of the complainant with the CAS worker and established that this looked like a fabricated story to gain custody of the child. CAS assisted with getting access going. Joseph Neuberger provided the report from CAS to the crown and reviewed the evidence including the correspondence from the family lawyers with the Crown. After two pre-trial meetings the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that this was a fabrication to gain custody. As a result the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. X.P. (2018)

Charge of Possession of Prohibited Weapon withdrawn. The client was fishing when the OPP stopped his boat for a routine check for fishing quotas. During a search of the boat a taser device was seized and X.P. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After reviewing the notes of the officers Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and advised the Crown of a violation of X.P.’s Charter right to be free from an unreasonable search. The client was obligated to sumbit to his boat being boarded by police for the fishing quota compliance but as this was compelled by Provincial law, anything beyond a search for fish was unlawful. As a result X.P.’s rights were violated. The taser was forfeited and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. J.O. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn in Superior Court Barrie after the preliminary hearing. The client was at the Wayhome festival in the summer of 2016 with a group of his friends. After a performance a young lady with two acquaintances came to his campsite. They were invited to sit down and join his group for drinks. After a while the young lady began conversing with J.O. and the two soon left the actual site and were seen kissing and going into his tent. After some time the young lady left. Apparently the young lady was rather intoxicated and went to another campsite. After being at this second site she fell asleep and woke up around 5 am. She then somehow found her way to her own campsite and fell asleep in a van. The next morning when panicked that she could not find her purse she said she thought she was sexually assaulted. Mr. J.O. was eventually identified and was charged with sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all persons interviewed and just spoken to by police. All statements were transcribed and other witnesses interviewed by the defence team. The Crown alleged that the complaint was too drunk to have consented to any sexual contact and as such she lacked the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger created a chart and timeline of all persons who had contact with the complainant and requested a preliminary hearing during which all witnesses would be called and examined. The Crown resisted and wanted only the complainant to be called. After a number of contested court appearances an agreement was reached that all witnesses would be called for Joseph Neuberger to cross-examine or examine. At the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant extensively about her activities before and after her encounter with J.O. including her drinking pattern, how she walked to the campite, spoke in a pretend British accent and made up a story about her life in addition to her own research on “capacity to consent”. It appeared that the complaintant had been reading online that if a female is drunk she cannot consent. Although this is wrong in fact and law it was an interesting area of cross-examination as this erroneous held belief tainted her state of mind and thus evidence about how she behaved and her own actions. Joseph Neuberger called every single other witness in order to have a clear timeline and detail as to the complainant’s condition before and after sex with J.O. and her own actions after the sexual contact. In fact a witness the Crown did not want to call but that was called to testify by Joseph Neuberger was another young woman who did not know the complainant but was able to identify her and state that the complaintant had arrived at her campsite (established to be after having been with Mr. J.O.). This witness stated that the complaintant came to her site and was talking in a British accent and started flirting with one of her male friends including sitting on his lap. There was other relevant evidence but the evidence effectively established that although quite drunk the complainant was walking, talking and even flirting after having been with J.O. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complaintant about her “flash backs” and established that she could not recall if in fact she consented to sex before having actual physical contact or during but had really suffered a black out. A black out does not mean a person is passed out but merely suffers memory loss as a result of the quantity of alcohol consumed. Thus, after the preliminary hearing Joseph Neuberger urged the head Crown Attorney to carefully review the preliminary hearing transcripts with a view to reasonable prospect of conviction. After a fair review the Crown conceded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket. M.S. was travelling on public transit when he sat down beside a female passenger. The female passenger felt M.S.’ hand touch her rear area for a few moments. As she got up to change seats, the complainant felt a grab of her rear area. She reported the incident and M.S. was charged with sexual assault. M.S. was interviewed and gave a somewhat inculpatory statement. M.S. did not retain Joseph Neuberger as his defence counsel until two years into the case. He had two previous counsel. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the evidence, and had extensive interviews with the client and his parents. M.S. was previously diagnosed with a form of Autism. Mr. Neuberger had the client undergo a psychological and psychiatric assessment to determine not only the diagnosis, but also his functional baseline in relation to the admissibility of his statement and other symptoms of his diagnosis that may have impacted on his conduct at the relevant time. The results determined that the diagnosis was still relevant and he was functioning below his age. In addition, M.S. has an unconscious habit of fidgeting and placing his hands under his legs when seated. Joseph Neuberger broke down the video surveillance from the public transit, and in fact the alleged touch while seated could in fact have been a result of this unconscious movement. The other alleged touching was not consistent with the video. Joseph Neuberger then disclosed the report, the chart and met with the Crown about the evidence at which time it was agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.J. (2018)

Domestic related charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 4, Assault with a Weapon, Threaten Death and Cruelty to an Animal, all withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. S.J. was in the midst of a separation and a custody battle regarding the complainant and their son. After the commencement of divorce proceedings the complainant went to police and made a number of historical claims of abuse. S.J. was charged. There were three statements from the complainant and some evidence from her father to support her allegations. Joseph Neuberger was eventually retained by the client after his first counsel recommended a guilty plea. Joseph Neuberger and his partner Grace Condello took over the file and interviewed the client extensively. Family court documents were obtained, as well as emails and messages exchanged between the complainant and S.J. leading up to the charges. There were serious financial issues at stake including a $100,000 loan made by S.J. to the father of the complainant. After extensive file investigation, Joseph Neuberger arranged a meeting with the Crown and disclosed various source documents that would have seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. The Crown agreed in light of the defence material, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were thus withdrawn.

Regina v. D.M. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Utter Threats withdrawn after extensive cross-examination of the complainant at trial. D.M. was in a short two month relationship with the complainant. D.M. had suspicions that the complainant had gone to Niagara Falls with another person and that she was having multiple relationships. My client attended her home and found out that in fact he was correct. An argument ensued and D.M. made a threat about intimate pictures. D.M. left but the complainant called police a week later. While in the police station the complainant alleged that throughout the relationship, he beat her and forced sex on her. The Crown was seeking five to six years. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. A great deal of time was spent with the client obtaining WeChat messages up to and including the date of the offence and after. It established the complainant had sought compensation or she was go to the police. The compensation was for some damage he caused during their argument and his threat about the pictures. D.M. would not pay $5,000.00 and the complainant indeed went to the police. Joseph Neuberger and Grace Condello, paralegal in the firm, worked on a breakdown of the complainant’s statement in step with all of the messages obtained. At trial, the complainant expanded her allegations to over 20 sexual assaults. Joseph Neuberger surgically cross-examined the complainant about each allegation and established the falsehoods in each and then put to the complainant a series of pictures and messages throughout the relationship that established a loving and respectful relationship save and except for the fact that the complainant carried on a secret relationship. After several hours of cross-examination, the Crown agreed to withdraw at trial.

Regina v. F.H. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. F.H. who was in the midst of an ongoing high conflict relationship with her former husband had sole custody of their daughter but during a weekend with the father, there was an alleged complaint of abuse. F.H. was charged with assault. F.H. retained Joseph Neuberger as her defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had all statements transcribed. The transcripts were reviewed in conjunction with the video statement of the child complainant and it became fairly clear that during the interview with police and the CAS worker, the child was confused and was using “mom” to refer to another family member as she felt close to that family member like a mother. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the statement and a chart breaking down the statement to expose the errors. In addition, the defence obtain statements from the child’s family physician and teachers about not ever seeing any hint of physical or emotional abuse but to the contrary when seeing the child and F.H. together, there was an observed close bonded relationship. After extensive discussions with the Crown and review of the evidence, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Q.L. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of trial. Q.L, a prominent Real Estate Broker, had become involved with a lady who he business dealings with. One night the two were intimate. The next afternoon, after they had lunch, the complainant attended a police station and made a complaint of sexual assault. Q.L. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend the allegations. Joseph Neuberger obtained the statement of the complainant, transcribed it, and then broke it down in time frames to analyze the actions of the complainant. In addition, the smart phone of the client was sent to the defence expert to retrieve messaging between the complainant and Q.L. prior and then after the alleged assault. Sometime later, after a three day trial was set, the complainant started calling Q.L. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had an investigator meet with Q.L. and set up recording devices to monitor and record the calls. The complainant kept calling and all discussions were recorded. The discussions were in Mandarin and Criminal Lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent the recordings to a certified translation service for certified transcription and translation. During the course of additional judicial pre-trials, an arrangement was made to disclose the defence evidence, on a without prejudice basis for an assessment of the prospects of conviction. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and in fact Q.L. was innocent. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Z.C. (2018)

Client found not guilty after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement and Utter Threat. Client got married at 19 to a young lady also 19 who was a Visa student. The marriage was primarily for helping the young lady get status in Canada, but the two came to have affection for each other. However, early on into the relationship Z.C. was discovered to be cheating and this caused a series of high conflict arguments and must turmoil over a six month period of the marriage. At the end of six months, the two separated. In October of 2016, the complainant attended Z.C.’s home and smashed his car. While Z.C. was following her back to her residence (the two had separated), police were called and the complainant alleged the Z.C. had committed two very serious sexual assaults, and a host of other serious offences. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. There was a team placed on the file with Daisy Zhang, a senior law clerk and a senior paralegal Grace. A large volume of evidence was obtained including two statements; messages and letters as well as statements from alleged witnesses. The case eventually went to trial. Joseph Neuberger and the defence team obtained undisclosed messages sent by the complainant to Z.C. and monitored various social media forums in which the complainant was posting material that showed considerable animus about the cheating but nothing about the alleged violence. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively crossed examined the complainant on inconsistencies in her statements in addition put hundreds of messages to the complainant contradicting the sequence of events and the implausibility of events. In addition, during the trial, the complainant continued to post on social media, and on the second day or cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger put to the complainant several posts that were highly aggressive in relation to Z.C. and showed a possible fabrication of a letter that she said the complainant wrote. The complainant initially lied about the social media posts, but under continued cross-examination with more posts being shown to the complainant, she relented and admitted the posts. The complainant alleged however that Z.C. had hacked into her account to manipulate the posts and other messages, but the defence expert was able to show that this allegation was false. By the end of the trial, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to convict Z.C. of the Sexual and other charges. The client was found not guilty.

Regina v S.W. (2018)

Charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with a Weapon, and Assault withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant boyfriend of S.W. was attacked by S.W. with a knife and sustained serious head injuries. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After review of the statements and interviews with the client, the situation arose from a very heated argument. It became apparent that S.W. became fearful of being attacked by the complainant and proactively obtained a knife to remove the complainant from the apartment. In addition, both parties had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. Joseph Neuberger had the complainant assessment by a therapist and a forensic psychiatrist. The reports suggested a situational psychosis of being attacked by the complainant. After months of therapy and further risk assessment, all defence reports were turned over to the Crown. The Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that there was a viable defence and that S.W. had done extensive therapy to address alcohol misuse and to demonstrate no risk. As such, all charges were withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond that would be in effect for 6 months.

Regina v. M.A. (2018)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon x 2 and Utter Threats x 2 withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. M.A.’ daughter apparently was not following her mother’s rules for the house and after an argument, while at school, the complainant made allegations against M.A. M.A. self-represented herself and wound up setting a trial. After CAS warned M.A. about her losing access to her daughter, M.A. retained Joseph Neuberger to defend the charges. Mr Neuberger reviewed the evidence, conducted a pre-trial and spoke with CAS. He then amended the bail to allow M.A. and her daugheter to enter into joint therapy. After four months of therapy and a very positive report, the Crown agreed that a “child” focused approach is far better than a trial. As such Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. M.M. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault with a Weapon x 2 and Utter Threat x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trials with the Crown Attorney Newmarket. M.M. was dating a lady about 25 years younger for about six months. The two had a child together and during the course of living together allegations of domestic violence were made by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was retained as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure, had all statements transcribed and then attended the home to view the scene. The description of the alleged assault with a weapon was not plausible given the layout of the room the complainant alleged the two assaults took place. Mr. Neuberger photographed the room and hallway. Then an interview was conducted of the client’s mother how was home during the incident. Joseph Neuberger turned over the defence evidence to the Crown and conducted a number of pre-trials. In the interim, Mr. Neuberger had the client complete an anger management program privately and furnished the Crown with a copy of the report. After further discussions with the Crown, an agreement was reached to withdraw all charges in favour of the client signing a peace bond.

Regina v. K.L. (2018)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Use Imitation Firearm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was charged with having been involved in a road-rage incident. After stopping his vehicle, he allegedly got out, punched the complainant in the head and pulled out a gun. The client retained Christopher Assie as his defence counsel at Neuberger & Partners. After reviewing the disclosure thoroughly, counsel had a number of discussions with the Crown and pointed all of the weaknesses in the case – the most important being that the Crown could not positively prove that the accused was the assailant. The Crown withdrew the charges in exchange for a peace bond. The client was a foreign student and any conviction for the offences would have led to his immediate deportation.

Regina v. T.S. (2018)

Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn after first day of trial. The client was a tow-truck operator. He was alleged to have had an argument with another fellow tow-truck driver. One night, he came across the complainant who was waiting for calls. The accused was alleged to have attacked the complainant and then proceeded to damage the two-truck. The client retained Christopher Assie. After cross-examining the complainant for a day, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the charges if the accused entered into a peace bond promising to stay away from the complainant. The second prosecution witness had not even testified. The client elected to enter into the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.L. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client involved in a fender-bender. The client got out to discuss with the other driver the accident and exchange insurance information. The client believed that the complainant was going to leave the scene and a scuffle ensued. The complainant suffered a number of injuries and the client was charged with assault when the police arrived. The client hired criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie of Neuberger and Partners. Defence Counsel was able to put together a package of material and convince the Crown to withdraw the charge in exchange for a peace bond.

Regina v. D.X (2018)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after one day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Mr. D.X. was alleged to have targeted a young lady at a University library and touching her in a sexual manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After extensive investigation by the defence, more information came to light including the two persons had met on two prior occasions at the library and had extensive conversations about work and life. This was thus not a stranger to Mr. D.X. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with the client to prepare him for his testimony at trial. Mr. D.X. in fact stated that they had spoken at length and on the day of the alleged sexual assault he states that he was propositioned to be a sugar daddy to the complainant and an argument ensued. At trial and under cross examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant conceded two prior meetings with the client at the library where they discussed a wide range of topics about work, personal life and her struggles financially. She conceded exchanges names and saying she hoped to see my client again. These admissions under cross-examination were critical to undermining her story about this being a complete stranger. In addition under cross examination the complainant made up two other allegations of touching that were not in her video statement. Joseph Neuberger has all witness statements transcribed and was able to critically cross-examine the complainant and establish material inconsistencies. In the defence case, D.X. testified in a detailed believable manner. At the end of the trial the judge determined that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt had not been achieved and the client was found not guilty. This case demonstrates the importance of extensive trial preparation with a client and skillful cross-examination in a climate where complainants are being presumptively believed about sexual assault allegations.

Regina v. K.H. (2018)

K.H. was charged with a sexual assault in a workplace incident. K.H. was a real estate broker and the complainant in this matter was office staff. After several discussions between John Navarrete and the Crown Attorney`s office at 1000 Finch Ave West about the inconsistencies in the complainant`s police statement and an email sent to her boss about the incident, the Crown decided to withdraw the charge against the accused on the day of trial. K.H. also signed a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. J.L. (2018)

J.L. was charged with assault after he was allegedly involved in a fight at a Karaoke Bar in Markham, Ontario. Mr. Navarrete conducted several Crown Pre-trials and Judicial Pre-trials with the Crown Attorney`s office in Newmarket, the Crown withdrew the charges against J.L. The client also signed a section 810 peace bond. Mr. Navarrete raised the issues of missing disclosure including a lost evidence application involving the missing surveillance tape taken at the Karoake bar on the night of the alleged incident.

R. v. G. D. (2018)

G.D. was charged with sexual assault (X2) and Indecent Act for an alleged incident at the workplace. After a judge alone trial at the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave, G.D. was acquitted of all the charges. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate a great deal of significant inconsistencies between the complainant`s version of events between her testimony at the preliminary inquiry, her statement of claim, her police report and her testimony at trial via a persistent cross examination of her.

R. v. S.G. (2018)

S.G. was originally charged with over 300 counts of Break and Enter, several counts of possession of burglar tools and possession of stolen property and dangerous driving. After the preliminary inquiry in Newmarket, S.G. was discharged of all the Break and Enter charges and only had 7 counts remaining. S.G. was able to plead guilty to one count of possession of stolen property in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket for a suspended sentence despite a long criminal record. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated through his cross examination at the preliminary inquiry the frailties of the police officers’ evidence dealing with their arrest of S.G., and that many of the items claimed by the victim’s to be in the possession of S.G. was simply unreliable. Mr. Navarrete also raised issues with the Crown Attorney of an illegal search of S.G.`s vehicle and how a routine traffic stop turned into a criminal investigation without any basis for their search and stop. In addition, Mr. Navarrete raised the spectre of an 11(b) argument for delay which resulted in a reasonable resolution.

Regina v. P.A. (2018)

Charges of Utter Death Threats x 3 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. P.A. was in the midst of separation from his wife. During three separate arguments, the complainant recorded P.A. making threats. The complainant went to police and P.A. was charged. At the same time, the complainant retained family law counsel and filed an application for sole custody of their one child. Joseph Neuberger was retained as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger obtained the recordings and transcribed them. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also obtained medical records of P.A. that demonstrated around the timing of the impugned arguments, P.A. had been sleep deprived, and suffering extreme anxiety. P.A. was sent to a forensic social worker for assessment and therapy. After extensive therapy, a report was furnished to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all charges in exchange for the client signing a common law peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.D. (2018)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. H.D. was charged with having assaulted his common law spouse during an argument when she had hid his cell phone and would not return it. During a struggle over her phone, the complainant called police. H.D. was arrested and accused of damaging the complainant’s phone and head butting her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After receiving and reviewing disclosure, Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown Attorney and negotiated a withdrawal. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2018)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial. J.L. was alleged to have been involved in an altercation with another patron at a bar. J.L. allegedly struck and injured the complainant. Defence lawyer John Navarrete was retained. After reviewing disclosure and obtaining a copy of the bar’s internal security recordings, Defence lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that in fact the complainant was the aggressor. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. B.W. (2018)

Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having assaulted his former girlfriend and fractured her right orbital bone during the course of a verbal argument. B.W. retained Joseph Neuberger as defence counsel. After obtaining the statement of the complainant and the medical evidence, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to assess the report and x-rays of the alleged injury. The evidence suggested that in fact the complainant had attacked B.W. first and B.W. responded by reaction with a slap. The Defence medical report showed that the fracture was minor and could have been caused by a hard slap. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also obtained text messages from the complainant, post the alleged offence, apologizing and wanting contact with B.W. These were translated from Mandarin to English and provided to the Crown with a defence book of authorities on self-defence. After extensive discussions with the assigned Crown Attorney, the Crown withdrew the charge as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.W. (2018)

After having successfully appealed a conviction for Assault causing bodily harm, and having a new trial ordered, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown Attorney and it was determined that the charge against J.W. ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, J.W. was found not guilty.

Regina v. S.L. (2018)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Gang Sexual Assault, Obstruct Justice and Fail to Comply with Release Order, withdrawn after commencement of the preliminary hearing. S.L. was hosting a poker event. A female attended with her friend and engaged in drinking and partying. The complainant female allegedly fell asleep and woke up the next morning not remembering what had happened. The complainant left the apartment and called police and alleged that she was sexually assaulted by at least two persons at the poker party. S.L. was arrested and charged. After being charged, the complainant further alleged that S.L. called her from a friend’s phone and offered money to resolve the issue privately. S.L. was charged with further offences. Then after the arrest a DNA warrant was executed and a fraction of a sperm cell was found inside the mouth of the complainant linked to S.L. There was no other evidence linking S.L. to sexually assaulting the complainant. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger obtained the DNA biology report and was able to establish a theory of innocent transference of the sperm cell. The amount found was quite small and was thus consistent with the defence theory. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no evidence actually liking S.L. to any call wherein S.L. offered money to resolve the file. After the commencement of the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger and the charges were withdrawn in favour of S.L. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. V.B. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn after the third judicial pre-trial and prior to trial. V.B. had been divorced from the complainant for a number of years. The two parties had a custody agreement in place. Just after V.B.’s family lawyer wrote to the complainant about seeking an extension of access time, the complainant attended a police station and alleged a prior sexual assault. V.B. was arrested and up until the time of the withdrawal of the charge, had not been able to see his children. V.B. retained Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed outline and supporting material about the chain of events including requests for increased access, and CAS notes showing no concerns regarding parenting but a high conflict relationship between V.B. and his former wife; the complainant. Just after the complainant made her statement to police, she sought sole custody of the two children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the letter and material for sole custody to the Crown and alleged that the criminal justice system was being used as a means to gain leverage in the family court process. After three judicial pre-trials, the Crown agreed and the charge of sexual assault was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.B. (2018)

Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. M.B. had met a young lady in a group therapy program and began a short relationship. After one night, the complainant contacted police and claimed to have been sexually assaulted. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the complainant’s statement to police and obtained certain records that were relevant to the reliability of the version provided by the complainant. After a series of pre-trials, during which Joseph Neuberger gave defence disclosure of relevant evidence, the Crown eventually agreed to withdraw the charge based upon concerns about reliability and not having a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Z.H. (2018)

Charges of Attempt Sexual Assault, Luring and Procuring withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. During a police operation for under age prostitution, Z.H. was arrested for allegedly procuring the services of a minor and having committed luring and attempt sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Much of the prosecution case relied upon text messages exchanged between the alleged minor and Z.H. Joseph Neuberger had a forensic analysis done of the client’s phone regarding the timing of each message and marshalled an argument about the overlap of messages and that Z.H. would not have seen the alleged message with the age. After negotiations with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.W. (2018)

J.W. was convicted at trial in Scarborough of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after and three day trial and was sentenced to 51 days jail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought bail pending appeal and an appeal with the assistance of Paul Calarco, appellate counsel. The Appeal Court overturned the decision on the basis that the judge misapprehended the evidence. The Appeal Court ordered a new trial.

Regina v. H.W. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket. H.W. had a heated argument with her boyfriend during which the boyfriend contacted police an alleged the assault and damage to his clothing. Defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained as her counsel. After several pre-trials and the client undertaking a private therapy program, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N.K. (2018)

Charges of Importation of Child Pornography, Possession of Child Pornography, and Access Child Pornography all withdrawn prior to trial. N.K. purchased online a blow up Anime doll and two other items. Canadian Border Services intercepted the items and turned them over to Toronto Police who determined that the child size Anime doll and two other items constituted child pornography. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer as well as Mariya Protsenko. After careful review of case law there was no other cases involving Anime cartoon characters. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko began research of Japanese and East Asian pop culture involving Anime characters. An expert was retained by the defence. A professor who had a Ph.d. in Asain culture reviewed the items seized and in particular the Amine doll. The premise was that this type of character is extremely popular in East Asian culture and such items are readily available for sale. Such characters are NOT representative of a child, or adult but have features of human, animal, children and adults and are not to be perceived as a child. In fact, the expert report clearly set out the Asian cultural perspective which noted the doll is not representative of a child. Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials with the assigned Crown and argued that a western centric perspective is inappropriate to assess whether the small seized Anime doll represents a child. Trial dates were set. However, after serving the expert notice and report, as well as a psycho-sexual assessment showing that N.K. demonstrated no preferences for children and had no history of any sexual paraphilias, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges upon the client signing a peace bond.

Regina v. F.J. (2018)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial. F.J. was having an argument with his wife regarding an alleged extra marital affair. When F.J. discussed divorce, the argument worsened and police were called by the complainant. F.J. was charged with two counts of domestic assault allegedly having occurred several months prior to this date of the argument. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure. There was no injuries, no reports to third parties such as a doctor and the report to police was made at the time of the breakdown of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents that were subsequently filed by the complainant . The divorce documents highlighted the two alleged incidents of assault but also other unreported incidents. In addition the complainant was seeking an unequal split of the family property and sole custody. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the family court documents and asserted that the allegations were made simply as revenge and to obtain money in the family case and sole custody. Numerous pre-trials were conducted and eventually the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges upon F.J. signing a peace bond.

Regina v. K.K. (2018)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief withdrawn. K.K. was dating the complainant. K.K. tried to end the relationship. A number of arguments erupted over the course of several weeks. During on argument K.K. broke the complainant’s cell phone. The complainant called police and K.K. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After examination of the prosecution evidence, Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials with the assigned Crown. It was apparent that emotions were high during the argument that resulted in the charges however the facts as alleged by the complainant were internally inconsistent. Joseph Neuberger had the client complete a private therapy program about conflict management and pay restitution for the damaged phone. The charges were withdrawn and K.K. signed a common law peace bond.

R. R. (2017)

Charges of Robbery, Forcible Confinement, Assault x 2 withdrawn on the morning of trial. The complainant had alleged that the accused had forced him into his car, beat him, stolen his watch, taken him out of the car and beat him again. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie elected to go straight to trial without having a preliminary inquiry, thus saving the client the additional legal fees. Counsel met with several of accused’s witnesses and prepared them for trial. On the morning of trial, counsel advised the prosecuting Crown of the multiple witnesses that were prepared to testify as to a completely different version of events. After discussions with counsel, the prosecuting Crown realized she had no reasonable prospect of conviction and offered to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond. The client R.R. was happy with the result as it guaranteed that he continued to have no criminal record.

L.C. (2017)

Potential Charges of Possession of Child Pornography and Making Child Pornography Available never laid. The police executed a search warrant on the client’s family home, seizing numerous computers and smart phones. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained by the family and assisted with fending off the investigation.

J.A. (2017)

Charges of Domestic Assault, Mischief to Property, and Failing to Appear in Court dismissed. The complainant and J.A. had been in a long term relationship. During an argument, the complainant alleged that J.A. had assaulted her and broken her cell phone. After being released from custody, J.A. failed to re-attend court. The matter was set down for trial. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie had the client conduct several sessions of counselling, repay the cost of the lost phone, and complete community service hours. The prosecuting Crown agreed to withdraw all charges in exchange for a peace bond. All charges were dismissed.

P.F. (2017)

Charges of Assault and Mischief to Property withdrawn. Complainant alleged that she was assaulted and had her phone thrown away by P.F. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. He provided the prosecutor with photos of damage caused to P.F.’s vehicle prior to the altercation. Charges withdrawn by the Crown after the third court appearance in exchange for P.F. entering into a peace bond. Client continues not to have a criminal record.

Regina v. C.P. (2017)

Charge of Assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions. C.P. had tracked down a group of young boys who he thought were bullying his daughter. When confronted, the boys were upset and a struggle ensued. Police were called by one of the boy’s parents and C.P. was charged with assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger conducted a pre-trial and although C.P. had only his daughter’s best interests at heart, there was a better way of handling the situation. C.P. completed five sessions of counselling and the charge was withdrawn. As a note, the boys were spoken to by police about the bullying issue.

Regina v. P.R. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault with Weapon x 2, Assault x 7, Utter Threats and Mischief all withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant and P.R. were in an intimate affair that was discovered by the complainant’s spouse. The affair continued but again was exposed. An argument erupted between the complainant and P.R. that resulted in the spouse of the complainant contacting police. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Aside from analyzing all of the statements, Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger canvassed a number of social media contacts that materially undermined the evidence of the complainant. After detailed pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, it was determined that the Crown would not proceed with the charges and as such, all charges were stayed.

Regina v. M.H. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Threaten Death, all withdrawn on the eve of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. M.H. was in a relationship with the complainant. The two were discussing engagement. At some point, a disagreement arose regarding whether the complainant was dating another person. In fact there was another male party and after this was discovered a further argument occurred between the complainant and M.H. After a visit by M.H. with the complainant, a call was made to police by the other boyfriend and then the complainant gave a statement resulting in charges being laid against M.H. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Subsequent to the charges being laid, Joseph Neuberger advised M.H. that in all likelihood the complainant will attempt to make contact. As such, a defence investigation was set up over social media and for calls. Two relevant calls were made, recorded and then transcribed. In addition a number of messages was sent to M.H. The calls and messages were in substance contrary to the statement originally given by the complainant. Just prior to trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger discovered that the other male party was charged with criminal harassment by the same complainant. Joseph Neuberger requested as disclosure the statement in that proceeding. It was further uncovered that the complainant alleged that she was forced to claim sexual assault allegations against M.H. by her other boyfriend. Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown and provided a detailed letter setting out the deficiencies with the complainant’s statement and providing transcripts of the recorded calls and copies of the messages. The Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.J. (2017)

Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. K.J. was married to the complainant. A bitter divorce ensued and the complainant was originally charged with various offences after separation. He was convicted of assault and fail to comply. Sometime after those convictions, the complainant then alleged that K.J. was making calls to his employer, posting information on social media and making calls to an agency that the complainant was associated with, all of which was alleged to have caused him to fear for his safety. He also alleged that he lost his job because of the calls. Joseph Neuberger was the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of the family court documents, the statement of defence from the wrongful dismissal action brought by the complainant against his former employer and the recordings of the calls made by K.J. Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown and provided a chart detailing the allegations and the source material to refute much of what was alleged by the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that all impugned calls may have been unpleasant for the complainant but they contained truthful information and did not contain any threats. More importantly, the complainant was not truthful about many aspects of his evidence. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no criminal offence committed by K.J. and as such the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.V. (2017)

Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to touching dismissed. The trial began in the Superior of Court of Justice, Toronto. The charges were in relation to allegations that the accused molested his son nearly a dozen times over the course of a month. Defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. He conducted a preliminary inquiry and cross-examined the complainant and his sister in great detail. At trial, Christopher Assie vigorously cross-examined the complainant and elicited dozens of contradictions between his testimony and various statements to the police. The complainant admitted to having lied to the police in order to incriminate his father. Through a skillful cross-examination, Christopher Assie was able to set out that the complainant had fabricated the abuse in order to have his father removed from the home due to the parental alienation that his mother had inflicted on her son. The cross-examination was so powerful that the prosecutor acknowledged that irreparable harm had been done to the complainant’s credibility and that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor elected to not call any further evidence and urged the judge to dismiss the case against the client.

Regina v. M.S. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault, and Assault with Weapon x 2 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. M.S. and his wife got into an argument over chats that she had discovered on his computer. The two got into a heated argument that then escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant wife contacted police and M.S. was charged. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his defence lawyer. At the initial intake meeting, Joseph Neuberger noted that M.S. had injuries. These injuries were not documented by the police. M.S. was sent to his doctor immediately and photographed. It was discovered that in fact M.S. had sustained a serious head injury, and abrasions. A full report was obtained from his doctor and was provided to the Crown with pictures of the injuries. Joseph Neuberger was able to send a private investigator to take a further statement from the complainant and photograph the kitchen where the fight is alleged to have occurred. Blood photographed on the wall matched the description given by M.S. to his defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger. Joseph Neuberger conducted two pre-trials but turned over the further statement of the complainant, photographs of the kitchen and a description of how the alleged assault took place and M.S.’ version was the correct version in which he was attacked first and sustained the more serious injuries. An agreement was reached to withdraw all charges and the client signed a six month common law peace bond.

Regina v. D.P. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after lengthy period of discussions with the Crown. D.P. had just separated from her wife. An argument erupted over custody of their one son. Prior to separation, the wife (complainant) was living out of the country and D.P. was in primary care of their son. D.P. left the house to avoid any further argument as the son was present in the house. When he returned an hour later, police were at the house and he was accused of assaulting his wife. The complainant immediately filed in Family court for sole custody but an Order was granted with some access to D.P. on an interim basis. The complainant refused to allow the son to see D.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired and obtained all of the family court documents and used the filed affidavits by the complainant to establish material inconsistencies between her statement to police and the family court filings. Eventually the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. G.C. (2017)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Bracebridge. The charges were of two separate complainants. One was alleged to have occurred in 2010 and the other in 2014. In 2014 G.C. met a lady off of Plenty of Fish website. They had a date. G.C. slept over at the complainant’s home and left the next morning. About three days later he was contacted by police and charged with sexual assault, allegedly holding the complainant down and masturbating in front of her. When that case was investigated, the police dug up a complaint from 2010 and reinvestigated that case and decided to lay the charge in addition to the 2014 allegation. The 2010 complaint was from G.C. seeing a young lady for about four to five weeks and she alleged that he forced sexual intercourse on her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger conducted a preliminary hearing and cross-examined each complainant in great detail. He also called other witnesses regarding the 2010 allegation that established exculpatory evidence. The case was then set down for trial in the Superior Court. The Crown brought an application for Similar Facts in order to support the credibility of each complainant. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross examined the 2014 complainant on a series of messaging that showed clearly an overtone of sexual interest prior to the date. In addition messages sent by the complainant immediately after the alleged sexual assault included “LOL” and a message that was at odds with her complaint. This evidence proved to be very compelling in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish other areas of issues with her evidence that defied logic and common sense. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the second complainant on her memory issues, obvious fabricated evidence, inconsistencies and the fact that the complainant had found out after the date of the alleged intercourse that G.C. had in fact met and had a romantic night with her best friend. Joseph Neuberger then called the complainant’s sister who spoke with the complainant the day after the alleged sexual assault. The sister knew G.C. from coming around the home and was told by the complainant that she was “head over heels” for G.C., and that she was excited at her relationship with G.C. going to the next level. There were other statements made after the alleged incident including that the complainant found out about the relationship with her friend and only then went to the police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged that out of immaturity and anger, the complainant felt wronged and went to the police and made an allegation that was not true. At trial the client was well prepared to testify and gave his response to the allegations. In judgment, the Court dismissed the similar act application finding in fact that the two cases were not connected in time nor circumstances, and accepted the evidence of G.C. In fact, the Court accepted the defence argument in finding both complainants not credible. The judgment goes quite far in finding G.C. factually innocent. Thus G.C. was acquitted of both charges of sexual assault.

Regina v. M.B. (2017)

Two charges of Indecent Act withdrawn after a year and half of negotiations with the Crown. The client was alleged to have exposed himself twice in a cemetery. There were two witnesses who identified him. He was arrested some six months after the alleged offences. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained to defend the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to attack the identification evidence however there was other independent evidence that supported the identification. M.B. was referred by his defence team to undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment and therapy. After a comprehensive assessment and therapy, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. K.Z. (2017)

Charge of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement withdrawn after numerous judicial pre-trials. K.Z. had met a young lady and the two went to dinner and then decided to stay at a hotel. During the course of the evening an argument broke out and the complainant ran from the room to the front lobby and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted. The client was arrested. He was in Canada as a student and any finding of guilt would have resulted not only in jail but removal from Canada. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko were retained. Joseph Neuberger consented to DNA testing as the Crown wanted to see if in fact any DNA from K.Z. was on the complainant. Furthermore the client had given a problematic statement to police but there were contradictory aspects to the complainant’s statement as well. The DNA results showed the presence of DNA that matched K.Z. but was not where the complainant had alleged it would be on her person. Further there could have been innocent transference of DNA. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko researched the statement issue and developed a strong argument to exclude the client’s statement from trial. After extensive discussions with the Crown and the pr-trial judge about the merits of the case, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client signed a common law peace bond. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.Q. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Assault x 2 and Choking withdrawn after extensive defence investigation and negotiations with the Crown Attorney. A.Q. and his wife were having marital issues related to alleged drug abuse by the wife. One Friday, the complainant wife did not return home with the child of the marriage. A.Q. got worried and called police and CAS. The complainant and the child were found and later returned home. However, a dispute broke out about what happened and A.Q. had stated that he wanted a divorce and that the child was not safe in the complainant’s care. The next day, the complainant attended a police station along with several of her family members and made a number of historic allegations of domestic abuse including sexual assault. A.Q. was arrested. He retained Joseph Neuberger as defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed all the statements including three long statements given by the complainant. A chart was creating by Joseph Neuberger noting numerous inconsistencies in details, dates, and factual allegations. In addition, when obtained medical records from the family physician, there was a complete lack of any evidence of physical injuries contemporaneous with the dates of the alleged assaults. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained other evidence with the assistance of his client and then prepared defence disclosure to the Crown along with a detailed letter outlining the reliability issues of the complainant, including a copy of the defence chart. After extensive and prolonged discussions with the Crown, all charges were withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.S.G. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 dismissed after one day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. S.S.G. had been having an affair. His wife discovered the affair and the marriage deteriorated. After a few months, S.S.G. informed his wife that he wanted a divorce. Shortly after an argument about the divorce, the complainant attended a police station and S.S.G. was charged with two charges of domestic abuse that were to have occurred one month prior. After S.S.G. was charged, the complainant filed a divorce application and specifically sought sole custody of their three year old son. The complainant had told police in her statement that she feared for her safety and that of her son. In the divorce case the complainant was opposed to any access other than supervised access for two hours once a week. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. Joseph Neuberger had the client retain a family lawyer immediately and began the defence of the case. Mr. Neuberger obtained copies of all of the family court documents. At trial, Joseph Neuberger cross-examined on the allegations in family court and established that in fact there were no issues of parenting by S.S.G of their son, and the complainant had no explanation as to why she sought sole custody other than revenge for the affair. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with S.S.G. in preparation for his testimony. The Crown at trial cross-examined S.S.G., to the effect that he was the “man of the house”, the “sole bread winner” and “sought to dominate his wife”. The line of cross-examination continued in this path. Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant about her background and in fact the complainant had several University degrees including a Masters in Physics and a Bachelor of Education. In submissions, Joseph Neuberger cautioned the court on falling into the trap of the Crown drawing upon archaic myths and stereotypes of men seeking to “control” and exploit their position without any evidence whatsoever to support such allegations. The thrust of the Crown’s argument was essentially S.S.G., like all men, seek to dominate and control and thus abuse their wives. This was rejected by the court. S.S.G. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. Z.L. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Fraud Under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. Z.L. and his girlfriend had an argument about something that had occurred regarding her friends. A decision was made by Z.L. to end their relationship. Sometime after the end of the relationship the complainant attended a police station and alleged that Z.L. had hacked into her account and transferred funds to himself. Further, she alleged allegations of sexual assault and that Z.L. knew she was underage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After careful review of the disclosure, including the two statements of the complainant and alleged banking documents, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that the banking documents were fraudulent and in fact no money had been taken from the complainant. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted a number of pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial during which it was established that the complainant was not reliable as to the allegations. In fact, Joseph Neuberger, produced defence evidence including pictures showing that all contact was consensual and the complainant represented to Z.L. that she was in fact 17 and not underage. As a result, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. L.Z. (2017)

Charges of domestic Assault x 4 stayed on the eve of trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend on two separate occasions including choking her. The complainant gave two statements to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after an in-depth interview of the client and two potential defence witnesses, sought disclosure from the Crown of two 911 calls made by the client around the dates of the alleged assaults including police records about the calls. Once obtained these calls revolved around instances of mental instability where L.Z. called police and ambulance services due to his fear of his girlfriend harming herself. It became clear from this disclosure that the complainant had unfortunately a serious mental health issue. On each instance L.Z. was restraining the complainant to prevent her from self harm. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger broke down the two statements and provided the Crown with a chart demonstrating material inconsistencies that supported the defence position that the only physical contact was for protection of the complainant and not an assault. Further, the complainant wrote a letter to the Crown about how at the time of providing her statements she was quite depressed and confused as a result of her illness. Joseph Neuberger pressed the Crown to speak with the complainant about her letter and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After numerous court appearances and pre-trials all charges were stayed.

Regina v. C.V. (2017)

Client discharged of first degree, second degree murder and manslaughter after a one month preliminary hearing. C.V. was charged with numerous offences along with three other individuals regarding a robbery and shooting at a restaurant in Toronto. C.L. was not the shooter but was alleged to have been sufficiently connected to the shooting of the victim to be tried on first or second degree murder. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko defended C.L. and were able to establish that there was insufficient evidence to establish that C.L. had knowledge that any shooting would occur and that he did not play a substantial role in the death of the victim. As such C.L. was committed to trial only upon armed robbery and related offences but not the murder allegations.

Regina v. C.P. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.P. was charged with one count of Domestic Assault. She had a very turbulent relationship with her husband with whom she had three children. It was alleged that C.P. placed a phone call to 911 and stated that her husband was abusing one of their children. Officers arrived at C.P.s and her husband’s residency. They spoke to the children who denied any abuse. It was further alleged that the husband had some injuries and upon further inquiries, the husband stated that C.P. became very angry with him because she was drinking and that she started hitting and scratching him. Officers placed C.P under arrest. C.P. was very stressed about the situation. In addition to her criminal charges, she was going through a divorce process with her husband. Defence Counsel Mariya Protsenko was able to offer a lot of support and was always available to C.P. by email, by phone and in person. The statement of the complainant had a number of internal inconsistencies that detracted from its reliability. However, C.P. was very stressed. Counsel negotiated that C.P. complete an anger management program and the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charges upon C.P. entering into a peace bond.

Regina v. K.A. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Death withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. The complainant and K.A. had been married for approximately three years. The two met in Morrocco. The complainant was 15 years younger than K.A. K.A. sponsored the complainant to come to Canada and when she arrived the two got married. Allegedly shortly after the marriage arguments started between the two about their lifestyle in Canada. In July of 2015 an argument ensued and K.A. informed the complainant he wanted a divorce. The two continued to live together but shortly after the argument the complainant attended the police and alleged numerous allegations of abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger obtained from his client dozens of receipts for trips, gifts and pictures of events and holidays that when put into context showed a loving relationship with a lavish treatment of the complainant. This was in stark contrast to the statement of the complainant explaining the entire marriage as a nightmare. The matter came for preliminary hearing but the complainant refused to testify. Details of the defence case were disclosed by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown for consideration of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, the Crown expressed concerns about the complainant’s emotional well being if testifying. An agreement was eventually reached for an assessment to be conducted. The assessment was completed and provided to the Crown. As a result of all of the factors in this case the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. J.M. (2017)

Charges of Assault x 2, Mischief and Threaten Bodily Harm withdrawn. J.M. and her husband decided to divorce prior to trial. The two remained living separate and apart in the matrimonial home. One day an argument erupted over finances and custody of the children. The argument got heated and physical contact occurred. The complainant husband called police and gave a statement about being assaulted and his chain being torn from his neck. The chain he wore was broken. J.M. was charged, held for bail and placed on conditions to not return to the house and access to the children to be through a third party or via a family court order. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was retained. After having reviewed the two statements of the complainant and obtaining email and text communications between J.M. and the complainant for the days leading up to the alleged charges, it was obvious that threats were being made by the complainant to seek sole custody of the children and the complainant was being very demeaning in his remarks to J.M. Extensive materials were provided to the Crown including many of the communications between the parties. J.M. undertook a therapy program. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also disclosed to the Crown family court pleadings that demonstrated baseless allegations that contradicted material portions of the complainant’s statements to police. In addition the complainant was refusing to pay any support. J.M. was employed as a real estate agent and needed to maintain her employment to support herself and the children. After extensive discussions with the Crown all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.L. (2017)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn just prior to commencement of trial. M.L. was charged with assault after his ex-wife made a complaint to police about of an alleged assault immediately after she and M.L. had a disagreement over the matrimonial property. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and he carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and the family court documents. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with his client and obtained source documents to refute various aspects of the complainant’s evidence. In addition, M.L. was actually assaulted by his wife and took pictures of his injuries. The police notes showed inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. For example, when first spoken to by police, the complainant described an assault which was inconsistent with the injury claimed by the complainant. In fact the police officer noted “no injuries consistent with the alleged assault”. The next day, the complainant attended the police station to provide a video-taped statement and showed officers a swollen hand and claimed it was a result of the assault she reported but the police notes clearly indicate “the complainant could not explain how she obtained the injury”. However, her injury was consistent with M.L.’s defence and his description of how he was assaulted by the complainant. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, assisted by his senior paralegal Grace Condello, charted out the evidence, inconsistencies and the evidence supportive of M.L. M.L. had not seen his son in 9 months since being charged because the complainant had not complied with the family court order. Due to the time issues and the urgency to bring a motion on in family court, Joseph Neuberger approached the Crown and provided extensive defence disclosure including pictures and the chart of the evidence. The Crown reviewed the material and determined based upon the defence evidence there was NO reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. P.L. (2017)

Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The complainant and P.L. had been dating for over two years. The relationship deteriorated and after an argument P.L. was charged with criminal harassment. Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained and P.L. attended counselling. Mariya Protsenko and Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a breakdown of the allegations in chart format and the legal test based on relevant case law. It was argued that the conduct complained of could not have made the complainant fear for her safety. A favourable therapy report was provided to the Crown and the charge was withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.G. (2017)

Client acquitted of charges of Assault with Weapon x 4 (Domestic), Threat Death x 2, Sexual Assault, Assault x 3, Attempt Sexual Assault and Breach Undertaking after an eight (8) day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. After a bitter separation and a decision by the court to place the children in the care of Mr. R.G., the former wife went to police an alleged historical physical and sexual abuse. There were two very lengthy statements provided by the complainant. Defence lawyers John Navarrete and Joseph Neuberger were the defence team on the file. After careful analysis of the statements, a chart of inconsistencies was drafted to assist with cross-examination. The defence lawyers obtained from the client emails, text messages, pictures, reports of experts and all the family court documentation to draft a very detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant. A lengthy probing cross-examination revealed serious issues of credibility and reliability of the complainant and the obvious motivation to fabricate the allegations to gain custody back of the children. In fact, after the charges were laid, the complainant drew on the criminal allegations to remove custody of the children from R.G. The client testified in his own defence. After detailed written submissions, the Court found Mr. R.G. not guilty of all counts.

Regina v. K.H. (2017)

Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 2, Mischief to Property, Trespass and Public Intoxication withdrawn after lengthy negotiations with the Crown and police. Client had a bad night with heavy drinking. When ejected from a bar, the client was not the best in public and police were called. Unfortunately, the intervention of police resulted in a scuffle that then wound up in the client being charged with a number of offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had lengthy discussions with the Crown and had the client perform community service, take various therapy programs, and undertake other restorative steps that ultimately resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges.

Regina v. S.G. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death, obstruct justice, intimidate a justice participant, and fail to comply x 2, dismissed after a four day trial. S.G. was alleged to have assaulted his daughter in law, and threatened to kill her. After he was charged, the complainant attended police again and alleged that S.G. re-attended the home and not only communicated with her but attempted to have her change her story to police by threatening her with further violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was hired. After carefully scrutinizing the complainant’s evidence, Joseph Neuberger, obtained statements from S.G.’s surety and neighbours to show that at no time did S.G. return to the home where his daughter was living and obtained medical evidence about physical restrictions that S.G. had which were inconsistent with the manner in which the complainant alleged the assault occurred. At trial, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the complainant extensively and established material inconsistencies not only between her two statements but also within her in court testimony. Many of the inconsistencies were not supportive of the allegations and significantly damaged her reliability and credibility. During the second phase of the trial, upon careful consideration of the evidence, the Crown attorney directed the judge that there was no longer any prospect of conviction and S.G. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. J.N. (2017)

Charges of domestic assault and mischief under withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The client and the complainant have been married for a number of years with five children. During a heated argument about ending the marriage, the police were called an allegations of domestic violence were made. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained and after reviewing the disclosure, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of text messages that suggested, prior to the argument, that the complainant was particularly angry at the suggestion that J.N. would want to end the marriage and was fore warning about possible charges. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the bail was varied so that J.N. could return home and the complainant and J.N. were allowed to attend marital counselling. After an extensive period of counselling the Crown agreed to withdrawn the charges in favour of a common law peace bond..

Regina v. P.L. (2017)

Client found not guilty of charges of Internet Luring x 2, and Obtaining the Sexual Services of a Person Under 18 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged in a York Regional Police project called “Raphael” designed to catch individuals who are attempting to obtain services of minors. The client had messaged a lady who advertised on the Backpages website and unbeknownst to the client the person at the other end was an undercover police officer. The main issue was given the context of the communications, the timing and sequencing of messages, did the client take reasonable steps to ascertain the person purported to be the escort was older than 18. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established through cross-examination at trial that P.L. had in fact inquired about age and because of the overlap in messaging, P.L. had the reasonable belief that the alleged escort was actually 25, when in fact the undercover officer was referring to an amount of money in his messages but without the use of a dollar sign. Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized the messages and obtained a forensic analysis of the client’s phone to establish timing of the messages. A comprehensive book of authorities was filed at trial by the defence and it was clear to the judge that P.L.’s belief that the person he thought he was communicating with was 25 and not underage, and thus he had taken “reasonable steps” to ascertain the age and was satisfied that she was 25 years of age. This was a very technical defence based on the evidence and case law, BUT P.L. was sincere and honest in his belief and was found not guilty at trial.

Regina v. C.C.S. (2017)

Charges of Kidnapping x 2, Extortion, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault with Weapon, Point Firearm, Criminal Organizations, stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice at the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted a Chinese Visa student as a result of an issue regarding a young lady and for the purposes of extortion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained video surveillance from the various locations showing the complainant was not under the control of the client and in fact appeared to be interacting in a friendly manner. The alleged injuries as reflected in the medical records were not consistent with the alleged beatings. Further, Joseph Neuberger interviewed several defence witnesses and provided the evidence to the Crown. The complainant left Canada and the Crown sought mutual legal assistance from the People’s Republic of China but the defence challenged the use of video testimony as the laws of China were to apply to the preliminary hearing. The defence was successful on a motion and the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. A.P. (2017)

Charges of Assault x 3, Weapons Dangerous x 3, Threaten Death x 2 and Forcible Confinement withdrawn on the first day of trial. The client was charged with a number of domestic related offences. The complainant brought the allegations after deciding to separate from A.P. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger raised significant inconsistencies between the statement of the complainant, her daughter’s statement, and Affidavit material filed in the Family Court Proceeding. Cross examination focused on these inconsistencies. After a break in the trial the Crown withdrew the charges as a result of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.P. (2017)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault x 2, and Threaten Death (Domestic), dismissed after seven day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at 1000 Finch Avenue West. S.P. was alleged to have sexually and physically abused his niece from the moment she arrived in Canada from March of 2012 up to January 7, 2015. The complainant had medical records demonstrating that she sustained injuries including a broken nose, bruising and puncture wounds. The medical records were from her visit to hospital at the time S.P. was arrested. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained as the lead defence counsel and Mariya Protsenko as the second defence lawyer on the file. Careful review and scrutiny of the complainant’s statement and medical records was conducted along with an extensive defence investigation. A private investigator was hired who interviewed three independent witnesses that testified at trial as to observing the complainant fall on January 7th and sustain certain injuries and another witness as to the compliant having confided in her that the complainant wanted to break up S.P.’s marriage so that she could marry him and obtain immigration status in Canada. At trial, the complainant’s evidence became far more detailed and extensive than in her statement to police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant over a two day period putting to her numerous inconsistencies, omissions and improbable assertions that undermined her credibility. Joseph Neuberger utilized the medical records to also undermine the complainant’s evidence about the alleged physical and sexual abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert in order to assert in cross-examination that the medical records proffered by the Crown were inconsistent with the evidence of the alleged abuse. Further, the defence marshalled the theory that the complainant lied about the allegations to protect her secret agenda that had been discovered by S.P. on January 7th and was to be exposed to her family. After extensive a detailed cross-examination of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the defence called three independent witnesses and then rested its case. The Court determined that the complainant was not credible or reliable and thus found S.P. not guilty of all charges.

R. v. R.R. (2017)

After a trial lasting over 3 years, with numerous civilian and police witnesses being called, client acquitted of several charges in the Ontario Court of Justice, including assaulting peace officer and assault with a weapon. Client was charged with several offences after an incident occurred in an apartment building in Toronto, which ultimately resulted in the client being shot 5 times with a C-8 assault rifle by police. Extensive cross-examination of all witnesses revealed inconsistencies in the evidence which resulted in all charges being dismissed.

R. v. W.C. (2016)

Client acquitted of 2 counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement relating to two different complainants, in two separate incidents that occurred at a work party. Both complainants were extensively cross-examined by lawyer Stacey Nichols, revealing serious inconsistencies in their stories which resulted in the client being acquitted of all charges in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence witnesses were also called by Ms. Nichols which contradicted both Complainant’s version of events.

Regina v. M.N. (2016)

Client found not guilty of Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), Utter Death Threats, Point Firearm, and Possession of Firearm, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. M.N. was alleged to have threatened and assaulted his ex-wife over an alleged dispute regarding their son. M.N. and the complainant had been divorced for several years but were still sharing custody of their young son. Over the course of a few months, tensions got heated regarding custody and child support issues. The complainant alleged that on Mother’s Day M.N. attended her apartment building and waited for her to return from work. As she was walking to the apartment at approximately 8:00 p.m. she alleged that M.N. got out of his car and pushed her to the corner of the building and put a gun to her head, threatening to kill her unless she provided him with the baby bonus cheques. M.N. retained Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko. After a detailed interview of the client and careful scrutiny of the statement of the complainant and other evidence, the defence found that within several days of the charges the complainant filed in Family Court for sole custody and used the allegations as a reason for sole custody. In fact, arguments had occurred prior to the date of the alleged offence wherein M.N. had suggested that their son would be better off living with him and his family because the complainant was working long hours and travelling extensively. Joseph Neuberger obtained the family court documents and used a number of the documents in cross examination of the complainant. Further, at trial, evidence of the complainant suggested that the event took well over 10 minutes with extensive details of how the event unfolded. However, the building video surveillance showed M.N. exiting his car, walking up to the complainant, then going out of range, and coming back to his car with a duration of less than 60 seconds. In cross examination, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to draw out the alleged details from the complainant and then put to the complainant the actual duration of the surveillance. Further, material inconsistencies arose during cross-examination that undermined her credibility. M.N. testified in his own defence and denied the allegations. After a careful analysis of the evidence, the Court acquitted M.N. of all charges.
Read More

Regina v. X.L. (2016)

Charges of Utter Death Threats x 4 withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was in a bitter custody dispute with her former husband. The day prior to the alleged threatening conduct, her father passed away. Due to a verbal argument in which a threat was made about obtaining sole custody, the complainant allegedly uttered a number of threats. Although the threats were actually uttered, given the history, and the circumstances, there was little objective reality to the complainant actually meaning to carry through any of the threats. The client attended therapy sessions and did very well in therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the report, numerous character letters and negotiated a withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. I.Z. (2016)

Charges of Firearms Trafficking, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Weapons Dangerous and Possession of Overcapacity Magazines all withdrawn just prior to trial. I.Z.’s home was searched pursuant to a Warrant issued on the primary basis of a confidential source’s information. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, reviewed the Warrant, and the Information to Obtain, and sought source material. It was obvious very little was done by police to confirm the C.I.’s information. In fact, surveillance of I.Z. yielded nothing of probative value although the Justice issued the Warrant. Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional Challenge alleging a section 8 Search and Seizure breach such that the Warrant was deficient and provided insufficient grounds for a search. Just prior to trial, the crown conceded that the Warrant was thin and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the charges. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.O. (2016)

Charges of Mischief, Domestic Assault, Threatening, Breach of Bail, Mischief to Data and Obstruct all withdrawn prior to commencement of the trial. P.O. who was charged with domestic allegations by his wife while he was on bail for a Refuse Roadside Sample for which she was the one who called police, was alleged to have communicated with her after being charged and the complainant alleged a historical assault, a threat to kill her and other allegations regarding their jointly owned business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the complainant fabricated the allegations because P.O. had filed for divorce and for her to gain an economic advantage in the divorce. Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic technology expert to show there was no mischief to data and interference with the complainant’s business. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.I. (2016)

Client found not guilty of a charge of Sexual Assault after five day trial in the Superior Court in Barrie. D.I. was invited to a party in Barrie at a young lady’s home whom he met via Plenty of Fish dating site. The party became extremely large and out of control. D.I. was drinking as everyone at the party was intoxicated and using marijuana. The complainant met up with the client during the evening and took shots from his bottle. At some point, the two went to D.I.’s car and sexual intercourse took place. As D.I. was exiting the car, he was pulling up his pants and a police officer had arrived and noticed D.I. D.I. appeared highly intoxicated and the officer thought he was going to attempt to drive. When he looked into the car, the officer found the complainant passed out in the car. Several police and paramedics attempted to wake up the complainant but she was unresponsive. She was removed from the car, place on a stretcher and taken to hospital. D.I. was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown pursued the prosecution on two grounds. First, that the complainant was heavily intoxicated and D.I. knew she was heavily intoxicated. Her blood alcohol readings were between 254 and 295 mg per 100 millilitres of blood. A very high level. Thus the Crown argued that at such a high level of intoxication she lacked the “capacity” to consent to sexual activity and D.I. knew this or was wilfully blind that he lacked consent. The second ground was that the complainant must have passed out during sexual contact in the car and thus D.I. no longer had consent as per the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Regina v. J.R.. In addition, the Crown relied on an Ontario Court of Justice decision wherein the Court stated that because the complainant in that case was passed out and was unresponsive, there was clear evidence that she lacked the capacity to consent.

Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined all Crown witnesses as to their observations of the complainant and showed that all Crown witnesses were unreliable. However, the complainant, under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, admitted that she has been drinking excessively for several months leading up to the date of the party. In fact, the complainant drank four to five times per week at least 375 ml of rum per night and when drunk was a heavy sleeper. The complainant admitted to being an experienced drinker who developed a high level of tolerance. During the party, she admitted to be a social butterfly and being able to socialize, talk, walk and have fun. That the alcohol helped her be more social and she enjoyed herself. However, after a point of drinking she had no memory of the events. Under cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger she admitted that she cannot remember if she consented to sexual contact due to her memory loss.

An expert toxicologist testified for the Crown. The toxicologist testified at to the blood alcohol levels and the general effects of high levels of alcohol. Under cross-examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the expert agreed that the pattern of drinking of the complainant is indicative of a “heavy” drinker and she would not doubt have a higher degree of tolerance. It would be no surprise that she could be functional even while at such a high level of intoxication. More importantly, the expert agreed that just because the complainant was found to be passed out in the car and not responding to police and paramedics, thus in a deep sleep, it does not mean that the complainant could not have been functional 10, 12, 13 or even 15 minutes prior to being found passed out. This one important evidentiary point directly contradicts that finding of the court in the case the Crown was relying upon.

Stacey Nichols and Joseph Neuberger crossed other witnesses that showed the complainant was functional and in fact was outside the house having a cigarette minutes before the sexual contact, and appeared to smile and be “fine”. In addition, although the Crown refused to call medical evidence, Joseph Neuberger extracted from the police witnesses that the complainant was released from hospital some two hours later without any treatment for alcohol poisoning or for any distress and that in fact by an hour or so after her arrival in hospital she was awake and talking to hospital staff. Thus, this evidence detracted from the argument that the complainant was in an exceptionally intoxicated state. Finally, the Crown tendered the video statement of the client.

Based on all the evidence, the Court found D.I. innocent and thus not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Case Comment: When dealing with sexual assault cases where the Crown alleges “incapacity to consent” it is extremely important to focus on the surrounding evidence and understand cognitive functioning and that consent to intimate contact requires a minimal level of cognitive functioning.

Regina v. J.E. (2016)

Charges of Assault, Threaten Death and Fail to Comply x 3 withdrawn after third judicial pre-trial. J.E. was alleged to have followed and ran off the road his former brother in law and assaulted him in addition to threatening him. The client was not supposed to have contact with the complainant. There was also an alleged independent witness who confirmed the complainant’s story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger video recorded the route and then canvassed the surrounding businesses for any surveillance recordings. Further, after a defence investigation Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the independent witness was in fact a friend of the complainant. The defence recording showed that it was impossible for the client to have driven as alleged and ran the complainant off the road into a plaza. Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the defence evidence over the course of several judicial pre-trials and as a result the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. S.S. (2016)

Charges of domestic assault x 2, and threaten death x 2 withdrawn after commencement of trial. Mr. S.S. had married his wife in India and after about two years of living together in Canada, repeated arguments arose regarding his work and finances. S.S. was her sponsor and the complainant had asked for him to sponsor his family. S.S. decided to separate and prior to the formal separation, S.S. was charged with assault and threatening. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained emails and text messages showing that the complainant was having an extramarital affair. In addition, the joint savings account had numerous withdrawals. This material was provided by Joseph Neuberger to the Crown at the start of the trial and during the initial phase of cross-examination. Based upon discussions, the charges were withdrawn and the client signed a common law peace bond.

R v. J.C.B. (2016)

Charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and internet luring withdrawn after extensive defence investigation. The client had met the complainant through an online dating site. The communications between the two continued for two weeks prior to meeting up. The initial communications were via the dating site but the majority of communications were by text messaging. The two met, went on a date and eventually had an intimate encounter. J.C.B. shortly after stopped communicating with the complainant because of excessive messages and calls. J.C.B. also came learn that the complainant was 15 and not 20 as she had noted on her profile. A few weeks later the mother of the complainant saw some of the text messages and that J.C.B. was 29. Police were contacted and charges were laid. The complainant gave a statement that included allegations that she was forced to have intimate contact with J.C.B. and had been clear with him that she was under age. After the charges were laid the complainant started to communicate again with J.C.B. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Each text message was downloaded and saved as defence evidence. Also, Joseph Neuberger retained on the client’s behalf a technology expert to retrieve all of the several hundred text messages between his client and the complainant. Defence Lawyer Joseph reviewed and organized the messages in groups establishing that the complainant led J.C.B. to believe she was older and experienced. Joseph Neuberger then hired a private investigator who pretended to be the client and messaged with the complainant on his phone. A strategy was employed to relate many of the past text messages in their ongoing communication to obtain admissions that she pretended to be older; that she pursued J.C.B. and not only consented to intimate contact, she had helped arrange the date and had talked about wanting to have intimate contact with J.C.B. After several hours of communications there was plenty of defence evidence to prove the complainant felt forced to give the statement she did because of her mother’s pressure and that she did not tell the truth to police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a document brief of all of the messages and disclosed the material to the Crown prosecutor. As a result all charges were withdrawn as the client was innocent. The client is now considering civil action for damages to his reputation and for the legal fees he spent.

R. v. P.P. (2016)

Client charged with one count of assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. Mr. Navarrete obtained various defence evidence and provided it to the Crown including emails and recordings. After reviewing the material the Crown concluded they had no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charges.

R. v. M.L. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Scarborough. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office and convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PPAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated possible mental health issues with the complainant including depression. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. Y.C. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete convinced the Crown that upon successful completion of the PAR program, the charges should be withdrawn. Mr. Navarrete provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community and also demonstrated issues the Crown would face in successfully prosecuting the client at trial. Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D.W. (2016)

Client charged with domestic assault in the Ontario Court of Justice in Kitchener. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s office. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated to the Crown that the complainant could not be believed given the surveillance video. Mr. Navarrete also provided character letters of the client’s good standing in the community. As a result, the Client completed the PAR program, entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. J.Z. (2016)

Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference at the Ontario Court of Justice at Old City Hall for an alleged incident that occurred on New Year’s Eve. The client was acquitted after a three day trial. Lawyer John Navarrete conducted a thorough cross examination of the child complainant and was able to demonstrate that the version of events could not have occurred when compared to other Crown witnesses’ evidence.

Regina v. S.R. (2016)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a date for trial. S.R. was in a relationship with the complainant for approximately four years. On the day of the alleged incident the two had been in an argument about financial issues as they attended Scarborough Town Centre. As a result of the argument, the two ended their relationship. However, during the argument S.R. was alleged to have yelled at the complainant and “elbowed” her. Two security guards who were in the vicinity heard the argument and allegedly witnessed the assault. S.R. was arrested for assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the exterior surveillance for the mall and nothing was shown on the video other than S.R. being in close proximity to the complainant. As a result, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of the charge.

Regina v. H.L. (2016)

Charge of criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn at the Scarborough Courthouse prior to setting a trial date. Mr. H.L. and the complainant were in an eight month relationship. After a falling out, the two broke up but the complainant would not vacate the shared apartment that was leased by H.L. H.L. had allegedly made over 100 calls to the complainant over a period of 24 hours and allegedly banged on the door of the apartment. The complainant called police and H.L. was charged. Defence lawyer Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure and conducted extensive pre-trials with the Crown. Although it was true that H.L. had made the calls there was no evidence of “reasonable” fear. H.L. attended for therapy on issues related to relationships and after a favourable report, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. J.L. (2016)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to trial in Newmarket Court. Ms. J.L. was charged by York Regional Police after allegedly scratching and punching her husband during a domestic dispute at their house. Ms. J.L. called police. Mandarin was her first language and she was not interviewed properly. But she had visible signs of injuries and she complained of fending off an assault from her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained medical records for his client who sustained an injury that required medical attention. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained occurrence reports of prior calls to police that established a pattern of aggressive conduct by the complainant – her husband. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with medical records and the occurrence reports. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. Z.K.L (2016)

Charges of assault and threaten death (domestic) withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney. Z.K.L. was allegedly to have grabbed and pushed his wife during a heated argument about the raising of their child. There was also an allegation of a threat. However, Z.K.L. sustained scratch marks on his neck and chest while the complainant sustained no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the injuries photographed and a medical expert examine the injuries who confirmed they were fresh – proximate in time to the alleged assault – and were consistent finger nails as the manner in which the marks were made. The pictures and report were disclosed to the Crown by Joseph Neuberger. The issue became clear that the couple wanted to reconcile and so Joseph Neuberger suggested individualized counselling followed by marital counselling in order to address the reasons for the couples’ arguments. After extensive therapy, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. E.T. (2016)

Charges of Luring x 2 and obtaining the sexual services of someone under 18, withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. E.T. was charged in a York Regional Police sting operation. The police place an ad on the Backpages for an escort of 18 years of age. During texting, the undercover officers indicates that the pretend escort is younger than 18. In this case, the officer sent a single text to E.T. and there was no direct reply by E.T. There was no confirmation or acknowledgement by E.T. of the alleged age. Joseph Neuberger conducted extensive legal research and had several pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial. Joseph Neuberger argued that the Crown must establish that the accused knew the age and although it could be inferred, there was no evidence from the text messages that gave any evidence that E.T. had actually read the text. Further, Joseph Neuberger argued that the timing of the text with the age overlapped in time with a text sent by E.T. and he thus may not have seen the text with the age. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge.

Regina v. N.G. (2016)

Charges of domestic assault and threaten death withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The complainant informed N.G. that she wanted a divorce. N.G. then said that he would seek custody of the children. Within two days of that discussion, N.G. was charged by police with two domestic related offences. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained material from the family court and utilized the pleadings of the complainant to establish to the Crown inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement to police and her pleadings in Family court. Based on the material provided by the defence, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges if the client were to sign a common law peace bond. As such, the client signed a common law peace bond, and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2016)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn after pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and Ms. R.A. had been married for about two years. The marriage was having difficulties due to ongoing pressure from both of their careers and poor communication. Unfortunately the two had a heated argument which allegedly escalated to a physical altercation. The complainant allegedly sustained scratch marks to his chest and neck. The complainant called police. When police attended both the complainant and R.A. provided statements. As a result, both the complainant and R.A. were charged with assault. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from R.A.’s physician medical records detailing injuries well prior to this occurrence that were a result of prior abuse. Joseph Neuberger sent R.A. for private counselling. A report was furnished to the Crown along with a copy of the medical records and as a result the Crown subsequently withdrew the charge of domestic assault.

Regina v. H.B.S. (2016)

A three year odyssey successfully concluded for this client after charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Assault x 3 and Threaten Death stayed just prior to the commencement of a two week jury trial. H.B.S. was married for approximately ten years to the complainant. Unfortunately, around year eight of the marriage, the relationship soured and H.B.S. had been talking about a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the complainant signed a marriage contract that limited support and division of property upon a divorce. Ultimately, in April of 2012 the two separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home. In May of 2012, police were called to the home for a domestic incident during which H.B.S. was charged with grabbing his wife’s arm during a verbal argument. There was a small red mark on her arm. When the complainant attended the police station and provided a video statement, the complainant gave information about historical sexual assault allegations and other assaults. H.B.S. was charged with various offences including two serious sexual assault charges. Joseph Neuberger was retained by H.B.S. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the family court documents, a copy of the marriage contract, and documents related to the complainant’s prior marriage and divorce. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client various pieces of evidence, including emails, cards, pictures, a copy of the wedding video, plus numerous other related material for the purposes of cross-examination and to contradict the complainant’s version of the marriage. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, extensively and in a detailed fashion, cross-examined the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained an admission from the complainant that in the divorce proceedings she was seeking to set aside the marriage contract partially due to the fact that she was alleging in an abusive relationship with H.B.S. prior to marriage and prior to signing the marriage contract. Thus, a conviction in the criminal case would bolster her case in the family court to set aside the marriage contract and the complainant could then gain over $2,000,000.00. There were numerous other inconsistencies raised by the defence including that both alleged brutal sexual assaults left NO injuries, yet in May of 2012 when she called the police, a red mark was found on her arm because the complainant stated that she “bruised easily.” Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger further established that an alleged assault from 2002, supposedly witnesses by her sister, was not reliable. In fact, the complainant had written out the statement of her sister and Joseph Neuberger alleged that there was obvious collusion. Joseph Neuberger disclosed additional defence evidence to the Crown and continually argued that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Finally, just before the commencement of the jury trial, the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. M.S. (2016)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Threaten Death, withdraw after pre-trial discussions. M.S. was alleged to have been in an altercation with his former girlfriend in their apartment. Police were called by a neighbour and injuries were observed. However, the complainant refused to provide a statement. Police arrested M.S. based upon the statement of the neighbour, the injuries and the state of the apartment. M.S. retained a lawyer who then set the matter down for trial. At some point after setting the trial date, M.S. changed counsel and retained Joseph Neuberger. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed M.S., and in fact on the day of the alleged assault, M.S. had sustained injuries for which he attended his doctor. A report was obtained from the doctor by Neuberger. Further, Joseph Neuberger, adjourned the trial date and booked a judicial pre-trial. During the pre-trial, Joseph Neuberger provided the defence medical report that showed “defensive” wounds on M.S. and Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no real prospect of conviction based upon the available evidence. Further, the complainant did not want to attend court for a trial. As a result, the client signed a six month common law peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.K. (2016)

Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault x 6, Cruelty to Animals and Utter Death Threats x 2, withdrawn at the commencement of trial. H.K. and the complainant had been a couple for over 15 years and married for about six years. While H.K. was away on a business trip, the complainant attended the police station and made allegations of historical and current abuse. The complainant had hired a family law lawyer just prior to attending at the police station. When H.K. arrived home, he was arrested at the airport. The next day, the complainant filed a divorce application, seeking exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of their child. In the Application, the complainant detailed the alleged abuse and the fact that H.K. was charged with various criminal offences. H.K. was held for bail and then released with restrictions not allowing him contact or to attend the home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, obtained all of the family court documents, and reviewed years of emails and messages between the complainant and H.K. Even while away on the business trip, all communications were loving and supportive. In fact, email communications before and after alleged dates of offences showed only a loving and supportive relationship. The client also kept years of cards and pictures also demonstrating a loving relationship, all painting a picture contrary to the complainant’s version of the marriage. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the communications and pictures to the Crown prior to trial as well as a detailed letter outlining the lack of corroborating evidence, and significant issues related to a possible motive to fabricate. At the eve of trial, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.B. (2016)

Charges of Domestic Assault and Utter Death Threats were withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. A.B. and the complainant, had separated about three months before the allegations were made. On the day the complainant attended the police to give a statement, A.B.’s family law lawyer had provided a letter to the complainant denying her to remove their child from Toronto. There were email exchanges between the complainant and A.B. that clearly showed the complainant was very angry that she could not remove the child from Toronto. Within a hour after receiving the letter the complainant attended police and provided a statement that some years ago A.B. had assaulted her and that this day A.B. had threatened to kill her. A.B. was arrested, and charged. Family law counsel for A.B. brought a motion to court to prevent the complainant from removing the child from Toronto. The motion was granted. Defence lawyer Joseph obtained all of the family court documents, emails between the complainant and A.B. and some past recorded arguments in which the complainant made serious threats of violence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed all of the information to the Crown. After several pre-trial discussions, including providing the Crown with an outline of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. M.D.R. (2015)

Charges of Aggravated Assault, Assault x2, and Utter Death Threats, withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown and during judicial pre-trials. At the point of an argument between M.D.R. and his wife, the complainant, M.D.R. informed the complainant that he wanted a divorce. While upstairs in the bedroom, the complainant called police. An investigation ensued and various statements were made about historical and current allegations of assault. The complainant refused to provide a video recorded statement but had recorded alleged threats made by her husband and had alleged medical records to support the Aggravated Assault charge. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a series of emails between the parties prior the police being called that supported a motive to fabricate. Further, the defence obtained the medical records which did not support the evidence of the aggravated assault charge. Further, Joseph Neuberger had a defence witness interviewed who provided a solid alibi defence to the aggravated assault charge and an explanation as to how the complainant sustained the injury. In fact, details in the medical records corroborated the statement of the defence witness. All defence investigation material was disclosed to the Crown. The complainant was advised to contact private counsel for independent legal advice. After extensive judicial pre-trial and pre-trial discussions, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.K. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching, stayed after evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the daughter of R.K.’s girlfriend. R.K. and the mother of the complainant had been in a committed relationship for three years. The complainant stated that for a two to three month period in the fall of 2014, R.K. had been touching her inappropriately. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the complainant and the mother of the complainant. Based on the statement of the mother, there appeared to very limited opportunity to have committed any of the alleged sexual assaults and more importantly when comparing the circumstances as described by the mother and the complainant, as to the nature of the relationships, the allegations seemed highly implausible. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to retrieve deleted emails and social media contacts between the complainant and R.K. that showed a healthy and caring relationship almost up to the point that the complainant made her allegations. Just prior to making the allegations, the complainant’s mother had decided to list her house for sale in order to move in with R.K.. This caused considerable emotional fear for the complainant as she did not want the house sold. The defence believed that the allegations were based on the complainant’s fear of her life changing and her mother moving on with her life, such that the allegations were an attempt to break up the relationship with R.K. After testimony at the preliminary hearing and a recantation under examination, the Crown decided to stay all charges.

Regina v. N.D. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault and assault with a weapon withdraw after judicial pre-trial. N.D. was alleged to have stopped his car when his girlfriend exited the car and went to run off. N.D. was accused of forcibly pushing the young lady back in the car and hitting her with an object. The alleged victim would not cooperate with police and during the investigation was in fact charged with public intoxication. A civilian allegedly witnessed the events from about a 100 metres away. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the scene and took measurements and pictures to establish that the witness could not have had a clear view and would not have been able to identify the client. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that given the evidence the charges could not be proven. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2015)

Client charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and administering obnoxious substance arising from a one night stand in Niagara Falls. After a thorough cross examination by defence lawyer John Navarrete of the complainant at the jury at trial, the client was acquitted of all charges. Mr. Navarrete worked with his client closely to ensure not only that he was prepared for his testimony at trial but that all details from the night in question were explored and reviewed.

Regina v. M. B. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend after a night of entertainment in downtown Toronto. Defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at College Park. After Mr. Navarrete’s cross examination of the complainant, the court concluded that the complainant’s evidence was simply unreliable given her consumption of alcohol. The client was acquitted at trial.

Regina v. S. F. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and conducted several meetings with the Crown’s office in Scarborough. Mr. Navarrete provided materials for the Crown’s review. The Crown withdrew the charges and the client entered into a common law peace bond.

Regina v. D. G. (2015)

Client charged with a historical sexual assault involving a family member. After reviewing disclosure and conducting legal research, defence lawyer John Navarrete conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney’s office in Brampton. Mr. Navarrete was able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the Crown’s case particularly the complainant’s lack of a concrete recollection and issues regarding her mental health. The charges were withdrawn.

R. v. M. L. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to her husband. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various meetings with the Crown at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete demonstrated various inconsistencies with the husband’s evidence. Charges were withdrawn after the client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. C.L. (2015)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his girlfriend. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and held various discussions with the complainant’s independent counsel. After several meetings with the Crown in Newmarket, Mr. Navarrete was able to secure a withdrawal of the charges. The client completed the PAR program and entered into a section 810 peace bond.

R. v. J.M.B. (2015)

Client charged with assault against his step daughter. Defence lawyer John Navarrete held various discussions with the Crown Attorney’s office at 1000 Finch and provided information for their consideration including a possible motive to lie by the complainant stemming from her personal mental health issues. The Crown agreed to withdraw all charges against the client.

Regina v. J.W. (2015)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. J.W. was accused by a female co-worker with sexual harassment for months that led up to J.W. allegedly sexually assaulting her on two back to back days at work. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statement of the complainant and five WeChat messages that the complainant provided police. These messages were from J.W. on the day of the alleged second assault. Joseph Neuberger obtained from J.W. another message that was sent by the complainant to J.W. that was about work but appeared friendly and contradicted the alleged timing of the second alleged sexual assault. After six hours of cross-examination, Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger raised numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. This was achieved by a very surgical cross-examination. In addition, through cross-examination Joseph Neuberger got the complainant to admit that she deleted all of her WeChat messages to J.W. including messages sent by her after the alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger established as well that the police investigation was highly deficient. The police did not interview any co-workers, did not check the security cameras for possible video of contact between the complainant and J.W., did not seize the complainant’s cell phone to recover her messages to J.W., did not photograph the work area and did not seize work time sheets to even see if J.W. was actually working in the factory at the time of the alleged sexual assaults. After a lengthy and detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the Crown asked the Court to enter verdicts of not guilty on both charges.

Regina v. J.C.H. (2015)

Client discharged after two day preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice of two charges of Sexual Exploitation. J.C.H. was charged arising from his position as a teacher at a school where the two complainants had been attending. The two complainants were long time friends of J.C.H.. The friendships had formed long before J.C.H. had completed University and was certified as a teacher. However, while being a teacher at the same school as the two young ladies, intimate relationships had developed with these young ladies at two different times over a two year period. There were no allegations of sexual assault and the relationships were consensual. However, when the parents found out about the relationships, complaints were made to the police and after a very extensive investigation, J.C.H. was charged with the two counts of sexual exploitation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger went through the voluminous information provided by police in a very detailed fashion including the witnesses statements and the statements of the two young ladies who were the “complainants”. After review of the relevant law, Joseph Neuberger, developed a strategy for cross-examination to bring out the true circumstances of the relationships. The prosecution argued that being a trust family friend of the two young ladies and a teacher at the school with some teaching contact with the young ladies, J.C.H. was in a position of trust and/or authority and there thus guilty. After focused cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the two young ladies at the preliminary hearing and argument in line with the law, the preliminary hearing judge found that there was no evidence to conclude, given the facts are elicited in cross-examination, that J.C.H. was in a position of trust or authority. J.C.H. was factually innocent of the allegations. Usually a teacher is in a position of trust or authority of a student but the determination is fact driven. In this case, the prior healthy relationships, and the evidence of the complainants at the preliminary hearing did not disclose that the nature of the relationships were that of student and teacher but in fact friends. Further, there was minimal contact at school where J.C.H. acted as a supply teacher for both young ladies. Accordingly, J.C.H. was discharged of the offences.

Regina v. D.M. (2015)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials regarding the merits of the prosecution’s case. Mr. D.M. had been divorced from the complainant for over a decade. Unfortunately, relations between the two remained unpleasant. D.M. attended the complainant’s home to meet his two adult son’s and parked his car in the driveway. When he and his sons returned to the residence, the complainant parked behind D.M.’s car and confronted D.M. about parking on her property. An alleged physical altercation occurred and D.M. was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had two statements taken from one of D.M.’s son and his fiancé. These statements were provided as defence disclosure to the Crown. Joseph Neuberger argued at the pre-trials that it was the complainant who intentionally sought out a confrontation. This was evidenced from blocking D.M.’s car and approaching him for an argument. After extensive judicial pre-trials, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish that at best there would be competing versions of the event as there were witnesses for both the complainant and D.M. who are credible. In the spirit of not having to have even adult children continue in the parental conflict, Joseph Neuberger negotiated that the charge would be withdrawn if D.M. completed an anger management program and conflict resolution course and then would sign a section 810 peace bond. D.M. completed the program, signed the peace bond and the charge was withdrawn. The peace bond was not an admission of any liability and the withdrawal is consistent with the client being innocent. However, given that the children of the failed marriage had been through a lot, it made good sense to resolve without any trial. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.D. (2105)

Charges of domestic assault x 3 withdrawn in the Orangeville Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial dates. A.D. and the complainant allegedly had an altercation wherein A.D. is alleged to have pushed, slapped and grabbed the complainant, his wife. The wife alleged the assaults started in the kitchen and moved to the living room. When police arrived A.D. gave a statement to police that the complainant had come into his office and their discussions quickly escalated to a loud argument about finances. A.D. stated that the complainant wanted him to leave the house and started pushing off his work from his desk, including his computer. When police searched the house, notes were made by the officers that the home office was in a state of disarray and the lap top computer was on the floor. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the full disclosure and given the nature of the alleged assaults, no injuries were noted by the police. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, established that in fact A.D.’s version was at the least credible and gave rise to a valid defence. Further, a subsequent interview of the complainant revealed that in fact an argument did take place in the home office and not in the kitchen or the living room. Based on these and other important admissions, it was agreed that A.D. would sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. F.L. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault x2, and threatening withdrawn after extensive judicial pre-trials on the merits of the allegations. Sadly, the complainant wife and F.L. were going through a very stressful time in their lives given the health of the child of the marriage. Verbal arguments were common but the complainant alleged that throughout the marriage F.L. was verbally and physically abusive and on one particular day, that F.L. threw a salad bowl at her and her mother. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed collateral witnesses who were closely involved with the family for months leading up to the alleged assault. All witnesses contradicted the version of the marriage and in fact gave very positive evidence about the interactions of the couple. Further, upon careful scrutiny of the statements of the wife and the mother in law, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a chart of inconsistencies establishing to the Crown material deficiencies in the prosecution evidence that would affect credibility. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.S. was charged with allegedly assaulting his girlfriend while he was asking her to move out of his apartment. The two had been living together for a short period of time and the relationship had been deteriorating. The complainant was from out of town and moved to Toronto to live with A.S. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer on the matter, reviewed the statement and evidence. There were no injuries consistent with the alleged assault and the 911 call was made in a calm manner. The fact that the alleged assault occurred coincidentally at the same time as A.S. requesting she leave the premises gave rise to a suspicion of fabrication. Joseph Neuberger negotiated that A.S. attend a therapy group and after completion of the program, the charge would be withdrawn. As such, A.S. signed a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. I.Z. (2015)

Charges of Assault, Assault Peace Officer, Mischief Under $5,000.00, and Unlawfully in a Dwelling, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client, while highly intoxicated, entered the wrong apartment thinking it was his apartment. The client lay down on the couch and when the occupant found the I.Z., a struggle ensued with damage to the apartment. Later there was also a struggle with police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, had the client immediately assessed. The client was young and had never drank before. The independently verified about of alcohol consumed severely impaired the judgment of I.Z. and resulted in him truly believing he was in his own apartment. After therapy and community service work, Joseph Neuberger, negotiated with the Crown that I.Z. sign a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 5, Sexual Interference, Assault, and Extortion, withdrawn after initial stages of cross-examination of the complainant during the preliminary hearing. A.S. and the complainant were in a relationship for approximately three years. The allegations are domestic related charges. The complainant gave a statement to police in 2013 that A.S. had sexually assaulted her during the early stages of dating when she was only 15 years of age and then after breaking up when she was 18, A.S. had assaulted and sexually assaulted her on numerous times during 2011, 2012 and 2013. There were also allegations that A.S. was forcing the complainant to have intimate relations under the threat of releasing a photo of her. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained with the assistance of a forensic expert, historical text and email communications between the parties dating back to 2010. The voluminous amount of communications disclosed that the two continued a relationship and there were other issues that impacted why the complainant had come forth to police and made allegations that were inaccurate given the real state of their relationship. After early cross-examination, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sat down with the Crown Attorney and walked him through the material and history of A.S. and the complainant. The Crown very fairly determined that based upon the disclosed defence emails and text messages, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.I. (2015)

Charge of sexual assault stayed on first day of trial. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a female he met from a dating website. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained and reviewed numerous text messages between the parties. In addition the defence obtained a copy of the complainant’s profile that she placed on the website. Tracking of the complainants activities showed shortly after the alleged sexual assault, the complainant was back on several dating websites. At trial, there were issues related to the complainant’s ability to testify and after discussions between Joseph Neuberger and the Crown, the charge was formally stayed.

Regina v. P.G. (2015)

Client found not guilty after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto of sexual assault. The client was accused of attending the complainant’s room in a housing unit around 2:30 am and forcing himself on her. The complainant and P.G. were from Taiwan. The complainant was attending school and had befriended P.G. In the complainant’s statement and testimony she minimized any real contact and relationship with P.G. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain from his client’s phone a voluminous amount of text and email communications that directly contradicted the complainant. After extensive cross-examination of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant had downplayed significant aspects of her relationship with P.G.. Further, available evidence did not support her story. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed a defence witness who he called at trial. The witness directly contradicted the complainant on material aspects of her evidence. P.G. testified. In the end, the client was found not guilty of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. Q.J. (2015)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was a student adviser/teacher and was alleged to have sexually assaulted an international student at the residence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on text messages sent two days after the alleged assault to Q.J. and just prior to her attendance at the police station. The messages revealed a motive to fabricate. In addition, it appeared that the complainant had colluded with a potential witness which came out during cross-examination of the complainant. During cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger, the complainant became vague and unclear on discussions and meetings she had with Q.J. prior to the alleged assault. Further, the defence interviewed an independent witness which contradicted the complainant on a number of facts. As such, Q.J. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. P.L. (2015)

Charge of failure to provide the necessities of life (alleged elder abuse case) stayed after one year of extensive judicial pre-trials. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger reviewed extensive medical records produced and statements of witnesses. Both the Crown and defence met and discussed in significant detail whether the facts showed any legal obligation of care. The complainant was living independently, and P.L. was not legally obligated to care for the complainant even though he did. The medical issue that arose was not obvious and the complainant had not wished to attend the doctor. After extensive review of case law, and all of the evidence, the Crown concluded, based on discussions with Joseph Neuberger, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was stayed.

Regina v. B.S. (2015)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his wife with allegedly grabbing and hitting her while in the kitchen during an argument. When police attended, the client spoke to police and advised that the argument occurred in the office at which time the complainant had started to throw papers and documents off of his desk. He advised police that he grabbed her to stop her from damaging his work documents. No injuries were visible. After extensive discussions with the Crown and an amendment to the bail allowing the couple to attend joint marriage counselling, the Crown withdrew all charges.

Regina v. A.H. (2015)

Charge of Voyeurism withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The client was alleged to have exposed himself of two occasions in a public place. There was extensive psycho-sexual testing completed and therapy. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that the alleged conduct was related to mental health issues that did not give rise to any future risk of violence or repeat offences. The client had also completed a considerable amount of community service and remained on release for approximately a year without any further issues. As a result, the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond.

Regina v. B.R. (2015)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn just prior to the commencement of trial. B.R. made allegedly made a video of an encounter with a unidentified female that appeared to be a non-consensual act. B.R. was investigated by police for an unrelated matter and his cell phone was seized and examined by police. Police demanded that B.R. provide them with the pass word to the cell phone. Police found the recording on the phone and charged B.R. A warrant was sought after the phone was seized. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the validity of the demand for the password as a breach of the client’s Charter rights and that the resulting search of the phone was unlawful. The warrant as well was deficient in many respects. Lastly, Joseph Neuberger, argued that the unidentified female may have actually consented and without a statement and hence evidence from the complainant, the Crown could not prove “lack of consent”. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. E.K. (2015)

Client found not guilty of Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault, Threaten Bodily Harm, and Sexual Assault with a Weapon after a five day trial in the Superior Court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained along with counsel for the co-accused police records regarding three prior occurrences of the complainant having made sexual assault allegations that were false. In addition, cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant inconsistencies, and substantial memory and recall issues. The two accused did not testify at trial. After considering all of the evidence, the trial judge noted that there were serious issues of credibility and reliability regarding the complainant’s evidence and the Court was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not consented to the sexual contact. As such, E.K. was found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. D.K. (2015)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial. The complainant alleged that she was inappropriately touched and kissed by D.K. during a tutoring session. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement from another student who was also present at the time of the alleged assault. The witness contradicted the evidence of the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the class and office area photographed. The entire space was less than 400 square feet. There was a large window between the office and the class room with a clear view into the classroom. The complainant’s mother was also present, seated in the office area, only a few steps away from where the complainant was working and allegedly assaulted. D.K. had been operating the business for over 14 years with absolutely no other complaints. At trial the Crown determined, based upon all the evidence and a number of relevant factors, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N.C. (2015)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous withdrawn prior to trial date. The client was charged allegedly with hitting and brandishing a knife during an argument with her spouse. No knife was recovered. The complainant sustained no visible injuries. There were background issues pertaining to marital discord over finances and the complainant wanted N.C. to leave the house. After extensive discussions with the Crown, and the complainant taking counselling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.A. (2014)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3 and Assault withdrawn after cross-examination by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant at the preliminary hearing. The complainant was the former spouse of R.A. R.A. and the complainant had BDSM sexual interests. After R.A. ended the relationship and retained family law counsel, the complainant went to the police and alleged a history of physical, sexual and verbal abuse. R.A. was charged and the complainant also brought a motion in Family Court to obtain sole custody of their child. In light of the charges, an interim order for sole custody was made. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client a large volume of emails between the parties dating back to when the parties started dating. The emails disclosed an ongoing relationship where both parties were more than interested in sexual contact and showed that even after the alleged dates of the sexual assaults, the complainant sought intimacy with R.A. even though R.A. made it clear the he wanted no more contact. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded sexual encounters between the parties, three of which occurred after the alleged sexual assaults and after the complainant said all sexual contact had ended. R.A. was originally represented by other counsel. A full day of the preliminary hearing was conducted and the previous defence lawyer failed to cross-examine on the email messages and on the sex tapes. Defence Attorney Joseph Neuberger, once he took over the file, obtained the emails and sex recordings from the client. Joseph Neuberger then brought a section 276 Application to be allowed to cross-examine the complainant on the emails as well as the recordings. The application was granted. Joseph Neuberger then cross-examined the complainant for a full second day of the preliminary hearing. As a result of the cross-examination, the complainant’s credibility was damaged beyond repair. The Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly all charges were stayed.

Regina v. R.A. (2014)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The allegations did not disclose a consistent story. The complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and the alleged assault would have resulted in injury if it were true. However, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the Crown during pre-trial discussions and was able to establish that the Crown had a weak case. As a result, R.A. completed 12 sessions of counselling and then signed a peace bond. Both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K.W. (2014)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date. C.K.W. was alleged to have followed and emailed the complainant, and ex-girlfriend, for several weeks. However, the emails that were disclosed by the complainant were only incomplete. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the email threads that established the complainant was initiating contact as well. In addition, the defence was able to establish that on two occasions when the complainant said that she was followed by C.K.W., he was in fact at work. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.T. (2014)

Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant alleged that S.T. had struck her while at Canada’s Wonderland. The client was arrested by security. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement of another witness that showed the complainant and first grabbed the crotch area of S.T. resulting in him striking her to get her to stop the assault. As a result of the independent witness statement the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. A.R. (2014)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Extortion discharged after completion of the Preliminary Hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a subordinate volunteer at a religious centre over the course of several years. The historical sexual assault allegations included a wide ranging array of sexual acts, as well as threats and coercion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively and aggressively cross-examined the complainant at the preliminary hearing. Numerous text messages and chats were put to the complainant in an attempt to establish that the complainant did not view A.R. as a person in authority and more importantly actively pursued him over the years for a relationship. The complainant admitted contacting A.R. “all the time” and expressing her love for him and wanting to be with him. She even attended his home and maintained a friendship with his wife and insisted on babysitting A.R.’s daughter. After cross-examination, the Crown Attorney reviewed the evidence and decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charges were discharged (meaning no evidence to commit to trial on).

Regina v. J.T. (2014)

Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, client was acquitted. Lawyer John Navarrete cross examined the complainant and after the evidence was closed, the Judge stated, “he could not believe one word” from the complainant. Mr. Navarrete in a careful cross examination demonstrated the complainant’s lack of credibility, reliability and believability. The accused had also been charged for Fail to Comply with a his terms of bail and his trial scheduled shortly after the assault trial, but the Crown decided to withdraw that charge because she no longer believed the complainant either.

Regina v. J.Y. (2014)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Forcible Confinement, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Pembroke, Ontario. J.Y. had arranged a date with a young lady through a social chat site. After the couple had relations, an argument ensued and the police were called. J.Y. was charged. At trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, directly challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability on many aspects of her story. It was established through cross-examination that there was no assault and no forcible confinement. Further, the complainant’s version of how the evening unfolded was not believable given the objective evidence and text messages. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that her version of events was unrealistic in relation to some admissions made by the complainant and the text messages. As a result J.Y. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. S. Z. (2014)

Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic) withdrawn prior to setting trial date. S.Z. was accused of assaulting his ex-wife on two separate occasions. The client had taken pictures of injuries he sustained during the course of the altercations. Just after the charges were laid, the complainant moved in Family Court for an order for exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through numerous prior emails from the complainant a pattern of threatening conduct wherein if S.Z. did not make a settlement with the complainant she was make false allegations against him. After detained discussions with the Crown and a lengthy judicial pre-trial, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that the complainant had serious credibility issues. In addition it was S.Z. who suffered injury and not the complainant. As a result both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J. S. (2014)

Client found not guilty of three counts of assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Guelph. J.S. was charged with having assaulted three bouncers by punching them and spitting blood at them while at a nightclub. Five security personnel from the bar and three police officers testified for the prosecution. Interestingly there were no witnesses from the bar other than police and security. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officer in charge and all witnesses on the deficient investigation in relation to not taking statements from any “independent” witnesses and the lack of any surveillance footage of the alleged assaults. The bar had a digital security surveillance system yet there was NO video. Further, there were no photos of any alleged injuries. J.S. had sustained serious injury and Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined each prosecution witness on the photographs of J.S.’s injuries and asked which were responsible for the injuries. Not one prosecution witness would admit any punch or kick to J.S. during the alleged struggle. After extensive cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish numerous inconsistencies and the simple fact that certain prosecution witnesses were not being forthright in their evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. H.C. (2014)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was a front desk supervisor at a hotel in Toronto. A number of guests in a room were causing a disturbance. It was alleged that H.C. attended the room having known the occupants. While in the room, H.C. was alleged to have stayed in a separate room with a female guest and raped her. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined all crown witnesses and was able to establish serious inconsistencies in the evidence, evidence of collusion and tainted memory and clear implausibility of a number of aspects of the evidence of the complainant and one of the main supporting witnesses. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, defence counsel, was able to raise serious doubt about the truth of the complainant’s evidence and H.C. was found not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. W.A. (2014)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client, a taxi driver, was accused of sexually assaulting a customer who was seated in the front passenger seat of his car. At trial defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of issues, including her level of intoxication. The interior of the taxi cab has an in-car camera. The entire ride was digitally recorded. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and established that at the time the complainant made her allegation she was not aware of the presence of an in-car camera and therefore she did not know that the ride was captured digitally. Further, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s in-court testimony and her recorded interview with police. There was a motive to fabricate as the complainant was drunk at the time of the alleged incident and got angry at W.Q. because he was not able to take the complainant to her home address. The complainant did not want to pay for the taxi ride. W.A. was well prepared to give evidence at the trial. In its judgment, the Court found the complainant’s evidence unreliable. Further, the Court accepted the evidence of W.A. Accordingly, W.A. was acquitted of the charge of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.C. (2014)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault x 3 and Domestic Assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. D.C. was charged during the initial stages of a separation by his wife. His wife alleged that sometime in the fall of 2012 D.C. started to sexually assault her in order to convince her to move ahead with divorce proceedings. In January 7, 2013 D.C. was alleged to have not only sexually assaulted his wife but also forced her down on a bed and caused injury to her wrist. On January 7, 2013, the complainant left the house after the alleged assaults and went directly to her family law lawyer. On January 10, 2013 the complainant went to police and D.C. was charged with the four criminal offences. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, cross-examined the complainant on her family court filings including the initial application seeking sole custody of the children and the exclusive possession of the house. The Application, of course, included the charges but also allegations of ongoing abuse in the marriage. D.C. was not able to gain access to his children for several weeks after released on bail. Once an interim order was put in place, D.C. only had limited access to his children and was prevented from any access to the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish in cross-examination that the complainant knew the effect criminal charges would have on her success in obtaining full custody and exclusive possession of the home. Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish significant inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and her statement. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time preparing D.C. for his testimony. In the court’s decision, the judge accepted the evidence of D.C. and found serious concerns with the complainant’s evidence including the implausibility of her allegations. The court relied on the cross-examination of the complainant in concluding that D.C. had to be found not guilty.

Regina v. S.S. (2014)

Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted a pedestrian as a “road rage” incident. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the area where the offence was alleged to have been committed with the client. A re-enactment was done with photograph and video evidence of where the witnesses were standing. It was obvious that the witnesses could not have viewed anything much less seen what they stated in their statements. In addition, an investigator retained by the defence found an employee of a store that works right at the corner who had witnesses the incident. His version of the event was contradictory to the complainant’s version. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger turned over all defence evidence to the Crown. The Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2014)

Charges of Robbery x 4, Possession of Stolen Property, Utter Death threats, Mischief Under $5,000.00, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, and Use Imitation Firearm, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a date for trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized all the statements and evidence and drafted a chart in relation to the evidence and highlighted all the inconsistencies. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown assigned to the file the chart and explained in detail all of the deficits of the prosecution’s case. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a complete lack of credible reliable evidence and as a result the prosecutor agreed with defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on any of the charges. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2014)

Charges of Assault x 6 (Domestic), Sexual Assault x 2 (Domestic) and Fail to comply x 2 withdraw prior the commencement of the preliminary hearing. D.S. was charged by his ex-wife with historical allegations dating back almost six years prior to the couple’s separation. The charges were laid just after D.S. won a interim custody order in family court. The client immediately had difficulty retaining custody of his children once the charges were laid. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger worked with the family law counsel to gather up all of the complainant’s affidavits and pleadings. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained a recording of a song that the complainant had the children sing to D.S. just after separation about how he was sick in the head. Discussions occurred between the assigned Crown and Joseph Neuberger due to concerns for the well being of the children. As a result, Joseph Neuberger provided a detailed chart of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence between her statement and the various affidavits filed in Family Court, a recording of the son and Joseph Neuberger further provided the full draft cross-examination to the Crown for her review. After discussions, the Crown agreed with Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.L. (2014)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client had an ongoing relationship with a young woman who professed to be 17 years of age. Unfortunately, she lied and was under the legal age of consent. The mother of the complainant discovered the relationship and contacted police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger researched the social media postings of the complainant including dating sites and discovered numberous profiles with the age of 17. In addition, the complainant seemed to suggest in her statement to police that she may have lied about her age to J.L. In addition, the defence disclosed the proposed evidence of J.L. to the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. K.B. (2014)

Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. K.B. was alleged to have sexually assaulted his granddaughter. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed cross-examination at trial of each crown witness to establish significant inconsistencies in the story of the complainant; evidence that showed that K.B., with in a moment of the alleged assault, was actually in another room and seemed “normal”. Finally, and most significant, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able establish that the circumstances in which the alleged sexual assault was to have occurred were implausible and stretched the bounds of imagination. Joseph Neuberger also carefully prepared K.B. for giving evidence and at trial. When K.B. testified, the judge while rendering his reasons for the verdict accepted the evidence of K.B. As a result, K.B. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. D.S. (2014)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the assigned crown regarding the minor nature of the allegation and in fact the implausibility of how the complainant explained how the alleged assault occurred. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. S.X.U. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault x 3, and sexual interference x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged historical assaults while living as a tenant with her mother in the basement of S.X.U’s home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a detailed cross-examination of the complainant along with taking statements from two crucial defence witnesses who were to testify at trial. Joseph Neuberger was able at trial to establish to the Crown major inconsistencies and implausible facts that resulted in the Crown re-assessing the case and concluding that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was accused of luring a female under the guise of a job as a nanny. While in the home during the “interview” he was alleged to have sexually assaulted her. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the statement establishing internal inconsistencies and the complaint was reluctant to being cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger. There was an issue of the complainant actually soliciting during the interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment establishing no sexual deviant tendencies and on that basis the charge was withdrawn and the client signed a peace bond simply to have no contact with the complainant. The charge was formally withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2013)

Charges of harassing phone calls and criminal harassment (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial. The complainant was accused of making numerous calls to her ex-spouse and of harassment. The defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, obtained the criminal record of the accused and then via an application under the Freedom on Information Act, obtained the occurrences and most importantly the notes of the officers regarding the past criminal record. Notably there was history of fabrication. In addition no alleged messages left by the client were ever recorded and no photo’s taken of my client attending at his place of residence. After discussions with the Crown, Joseph Neuberger convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.W.K. (2013)

Client found not guilty of two counts of sexual assault and 8 counts of sexual assault withdrawn. The client was accused of touching a female on a TTC train. The female took a picture of the male and when reported the same to police, the police did a press release and 9 other people came forward to allege similar assaults. Once full disclosure was provided, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, chartered out all of the statements and identification evidence to establish that there not only was tainting of identification as a result of the police’s press release but also many of the complainants gave descriptions that did not fit the client. Further, the Crown wanted to pursue a similar act application to show that the method of assault was similar through all of the counts and as such, there could be enough evidence of identification. However, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought statistical data from the TTC about the frequency, numbers and details of sexual assaults on trains and/buses. Not surprisingly the rate was very high and showed that almost 90 per cent all involved the exact same method of assault and as such, there was no basis to a similar act application.

Regina v. N.R. (2013)

Charge of assault withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The client was in an altercation with a female complainant that seemed largely unexplained. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed by a forensic psychiatrist and it was discovered that the client had been suffering from a major mental illness for some time that was not diagnosed and not treated. As a result, the client was assessed and began treatment. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a report from the psychiatrist and provided same to the Crown. As a result of a number of discussions, it was agreed that the charge be withdrawn.

Regina v. A.S. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with having allegedly lured a woman into his home under the pretense of a job as a nanny. During the interview, the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. Investigation by Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger in the social media postings of the complainant established that she was never looking for any position as a nanny but had been made statements contrary to what she alleged to police. In addition, statements taken by the defence from the security staff at the building where the client resided indicated that when the complainant attended she was dressed not appropriately for an interview and when leaving was in a happy mood asking them to order her a taxi. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger also had the client undergo a forensic psycho-sexual assessment to show that he was and is of low to no risk to females. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. H.V. (2013)

Client was charged with various sexual assault allegations made by 2 female family members that were historical in nature and spanned a lengthy time period. After a 4 day trial and extensive cross-examination of the Complainants by lawyer Stacey Nichols, as well as presentation of Defence evidence of other family members which refuted the Complainant’s allegations, client was acquitted of all charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. A.G. (2013)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant during the course of a bitter divorce alleged that at an exchange of their child under the interim custody arrangement, A.G. assaulted her while she was holding the child. Fortunately, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to track down two civilian witnesses who provided statements that the complainant was acting in a highly belligerent and volatile state. In addition, recordings of the compliant made during arguments with the A.G. were turned over to the Crown to establish the aggressive nature of the complainant’s interaction with A.G. After extensive pre-trials, the Crown withdrew the charge on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. K.M. (2013)

Charges of domestic assault x 2 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Hamilton. Client was charged by his girlfriend with having assaulted her on at least two occasions. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a cross-examination based on numerous subtle, but important, inconsistencies and drafted a chart of these inconsistencies based upon her statement, occurrence reports and her 911 call. In addition Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from two witnesses in relation to a subsequent occurrence in order to establish that she fabricated a further allegation of breach of K.M’s bail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed chart of all of the inconsistencies, details as to her motive to lie and a draft of the cross-examination. As a result, the Crown assessed the case and determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.R. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault and threatening harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was a young person alleged to have engaged in “bullying” activity including a sexual assault and threatening of the complainant while at school. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger critically assessed the statement of the complainant along with the statements of a number of witnesses, and then obtained statements from teachers and other witnesses in relation to the actions and behaviors of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with an extensive package of statements and a detailed letter outlining why the complainant lacked credibility and why there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After several pre-trial discussions with the assigned Crown, the charges were withdrawn on the basis of no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.C. (2013)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial. R.C. was charged with allegedly assaulted his girlfriend after she accused him of cheating on her. After the charge was laid the complainant continued to text and communicate with R.C. and demand funds for some alleged debt that he owed. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client all of the communications and further had statements taken from individuals who the complainant had spoken to about the allegations and made disparaging remarks and contradictory remarks about the allegations. Joseph Neuberger put together a defence disclosure package of all the communications and statements and provided same to the crown attorney. After extensive discussions, the Crown concluded that the complainant had no credibility and that there may have been financial motivation and a revenge aspect to the allegation in the first place. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.M. (2013)

Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and forcible confinement after trial. R.M. was alleged to have forced his ex-girlfriend into his house, locked the doors and held her against the door while arguing with her about the demise of their relationship. During this alleged altercation, R.M. was injured and the complainant sustained no injuries. After Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that R.M., after having been struck and started to bleed, told the complainant that he was going to call police and asked the complainant to leave. It was after this that the complainant first called police and did so while remaining on R.M.”s porch, which under cross-examined was used to show that the complainant was not fearful (otherwise she would have sought refuge in her car or some other safe location) and instead contacted police in order to pre-empt her from being charged for having assaulted R.M. Other significant factors were raised during cross-examination that undermined the complainant’s version of events. R.M. was well prepared by Joseph Neuberger and testified in a straightforward and believable manner. As such, the trial judge found R.M. credible and R.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

R. v. T(L.) 2013

The Appellant was convicted at trial of Assault and Assault With a Weapon as a result of an altercation during a domestic dispute when a baseball bat was thrown. In the Court of Appeal, lawyer successfully argued that the conduct proven by the Crown did not amount to an assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this argument and the Appellant’s convictions for Assault and Assault with a Weapon were overturned and an acquittal entered.

Regina v. M.Z. (2013)

Client charged with alleged sexually assaulting his wife, withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on important inconsistencies between her 911 call and the statements she provided to police. Mr. Neuberger was able to establish that there were financial motivations to the complainant making the allegation of sexual assault and in fact the translated statement, as the original statement was in Punjabi, was not accurate which gave rise to the inherent unreliability of her initial allegations. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. J.B. (2013)

Charges of sexual assault and domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his girlfriend while in a hotel and when she fled grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back to the room. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to have the complainant re-interviewed during which the complainant recanted the allegation and also confirmed her state of high intoxication. The defence obtained copies of her bar tab establishing that the complainant had consumed a large volume of alcohol close in time to the alleged sexual assault. Further, an independent witness who allegedly observed the grabbing of the hair, was inconsistent in his statement, and was contradicted in his timing given the re-interview of the complainant. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, the client agreed to attend an expert retained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger for counselling and after completion of 12 sessions, the client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn

Regina v. S.R.X. (2013)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman who was passed out and later died from a drug overdose. The police were called the next day when the young woman’s body was found and S.R.X. was interviewed and charged based on the content of his interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the client’s statement prior to the first set date and was able to conduct an early pre-trial with the assigned Crown. The statement was not admissible as it was very clear that S.R.X. was struggling during the interview to properly express himself in English and thus the statement ought to have been taken in Mandarin, the client’s first language. Further, when the client obtained legal advise from duty counsel, the advise was also provided in English and the client had expressed to the police that he did not fully understand what duty counsel had explained. As such, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the client did not obtain proper legal advise breaching his Charter right and that in any event the statement was so poor given the problems in language thus resulting in the Crown withdrawing the charge on the first appearance in court.

Regina v. J.C.K. (2013)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Disobey Court Order withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. The client had been charged previously by his former wife with assault related allegations and after being acquitted at trial was charged one year later with the new allegation of assault and disobey family court order. Joseph Neuberger, counsel for J.C.K. took the position that the complainant had fabricated the entire incident. There was no supporting evidence and Joseph Neuberger acquired an Affidavit from a former witness used by the complainant who recently confirmed in the Affidavit, under oath, that the complainant had asked her to lie in the previous case. The judgement in the previous case specifically referred to the complainant having fabricated evidence and being an unreliable witness. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided extensive materials to the Crown, including a copy of the transcript of Joseph Neuberger’s cross-examination of the complainant in the previous trial along with the judgment in order to establish that the complainant has absolutely no credibility. After several pre-trial meetings the Crown, the prosecution decided to withdraw the charges based on the material provided and confirmed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. G.M. (2013)

Charges of assault (domestic), threaten death and mischief under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial. The evidence as disclosed by the prosecution was contradictory as one witness who allegedly observed the assault gave a completely different version of how the argument and assault started. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had additional statements taken to further undermine the statement of the complainant. All statements were disclosed during pre-trial discussions with the Crown. After several pre-trial meetings, the Crown agreed with the defence position and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.G. (2013)

Client found innocent of domestic charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Threaten Death x 2, and Disobey Court Order x 2 after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant had charged T.G. on two prior occasions both of which resulted in withdrawals. The complainant alleged in February of 2011 that T.G. committed a brutal assault five days after she was removed from the home owned by T.G. by police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought an abuse application for a stay of proceedings alleging that the Crown ought to have withdrew the charges based on the lack of credibility of the complainant and thus an improper assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, actions taken by the complainant and the police after the laying of the charges were quite abusive. For example, the complainant alleged that T.G. had stolen a bed that belonged to the complainant for their son. The complainant produced an invoice dated June 9, 2009. Based on the receipt police attended the client’s mother’s home and essentially threaten charges unless she would turn over the bed to the complainant. Under cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger asked the complainant to identify the date of the invoice which was June of 2009 and then to read out the price paid. The price paid clearly stated a number including HST. HST only came into effect in July of 2010. The invoice had to have been made up by the complainant and the officer who acted on the invoice clearly paid no attention to whether the invoice was authentic. Detailed cross-examination by Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger yielded countless inconsistencies and implausible answers that led the Judge to find T.G. innocent and to completely reject the evidence of the complainant. For details of the abuse application see below.
Click Here To Read the Abuse Application

Regina v. I.H. (2013)

Charges of Domestic Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial. I.H. was charged with having assaulted his wife and two children during the course of the marriage. At the dissolution of the marriage, the complainant left the matrimonial home and went to live in a shelter with the two children. At that time the complainant alleged the abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the statements of the complainants transcribed and then carefully analyzed each statement. At which time Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a chart of inconsistencies that not only undermined the reliability of the complaints’ evidence but were quite implausible. Consequently all charges were withdrawn .

Regina v. Z.M, (2013)

Historical charges of sexual assault x 3, sexual interference x 3, and forcible confinement withdrawn after three day preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger first took statements from other potential defence witnesses and gathered demonstrative evidence that limited the timing the allegations could have occurred. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted an extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant raising many issues of not only inconsistencies between her in court testimony and her statements to police, but robust cross-examination on issues of how implausible some of the facts were including where one of the alleged sexual assaults was alleged to have occurred including the manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger called evidence from the complainant’s father to also establish collusion and one other witness to establish motive for the complainant to have fabricated the allegations. As a result, all charges were withdrawn after completion of the preliminary hearing.

Regina v. R.K., (2013)

Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the Crown regarding the evidence as described by the complainant her statement. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was an ulterior motive to the allegations, namely an attempt by the complainant to thwart R.K.’s access to his child. Given other evidence presented by the defence including an assessment, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges .

Regina v. M.W., (2013)

Client found not guilty of charges of Forcible Entry, Unlawful Confinement, and Assault with a Weapon, after a two week jury trial. M.W. was a police officer who was charged as a result of entering a crime scene without a warrant. M.W. was charged with another officer. After attending an emergency call wherein a male was severely beaten, M.W. gathered information that led them to a house that was the crime scene. Due to the fear for the destruction of evidence, the two officers entered the home without a warrant. A complaint was made by one occupant of the house and the two officers were charged. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger argued at trial that there were ample grounds for M.W. to enter the home and there were genuine urgent circumstances that necessitated the entry to the home without a warrant. After a two week trial, M.W. along with his fellow officer was acquitted by the jury.
Read Article

Regina v. A.E., (2013)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.E. was alleged to have lured a young women to his house under the pretence of a job interview. The two exchanged information via Kijiji and then arranged an interview for a date in February of 2012. A.E. was alleged to have used an alias for his name. While at A.E.’s residence, the complainant alleged that she was applying for a cleaning job and she was made to clean a bathroom. During the cleaning, A.E. was alleged to have touched the complainant inappropriately and to have made sexual comments. Further, after the cleaning in the bathroom, the complainant alleged she was invited into the bedroom to continue the interview where she was sexually assaulted including forced intercourse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant establishing additional facts that supported the defence theory that the complainant did not intend to interview for a cleaning job but in fact while in the home, the complainant acted in a sexually provocative manner and eventually proposition A.E. Joseph Neuberger established significant inconsistencies in cross-examination of the complainant and slowly gained crucial admissions from the complainant about acting sexually provocatively and after having told A.E. that she “hated cleaning” that she then told A.E. that “there were other ways for her to make money”. Joseph Neuberger established that these crucial admissions had been intentionally left out of the complainants statement to police. Based upon a thorough and highly effective cross-examination of the complainant, without the client testifying, the Court found A.E. not guilty of sexual assault.

Regina v. D.S. (2012)

Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference. Lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined the Complainant over a 2 day period and also presented defence evidence showing that the allegations could not have occurred as alleged by the Complainant. Client acquitted of both charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. R.M. and W.M. (2012)

Charges of assault causing bodily harm dismissed after lengthy discussions with the Crown. The two clients were charged with a fight arising from a dispute at a Toronto nightclub. The evidence was contradictory but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained further evidence demonstrating the complainant as having been involved in an attack on R.M. and W.M. which supported the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and the two clients merely acted in self-defence. Accordingly, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. T.N. (2012)

Charges of Threaten Death x 2 and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements of independent witnesses and the video surveillance of the location where the incident was alleged to have occurred. The evidence established material inconsistencies with the two complainant’s version of events. As a result of the defence investigation, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G.A. (2012)

Charges of Threaten Death x 3, Assault x 2, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain a copy of a 42 minute taped argument between the complainant and M.G.A.. The tape disclosed that the complainant was extremely aggressive, threatening and out of control while the client was at all times controlled. Two other recorded arguments further added to the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and made up the allegations because the client ended the 16 year marriage. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the crown that based on the disclosed evidence there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were this withdrawn.

Regina v. D.K. (2012)

Charges of mischief and indecent act withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The client was alleged to have exposed himself while leaving a subway on a path that was dark with a potential female victim that was several metres ahead of the client. The evidence presented was conflicting in whether it was possible for the potential victim to have seen anything. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic assessment to rule out any sexual deviations and provided the report to the Crown showing that there was no such issues and no risk to the community. After numerous meetings with the Crown and judicial pre-trials, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. B.L.C. (2012)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a female friend after they attended a casino and went to the hotel to rest before returning to Toronto. The allegations were very serious and reported to police later that night. The complainant had a boyfriend and when she returned home an argument ensued about why she went with B.L.C. to the casino. It was during this argument that the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. In the complainant’s statement, it was alleged that B.L.C. made numerous affectionate moves on the complainant, while in the casino, that were flatly rejected by the complainant, including the complainant intentionally standing away from B.L.C. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the surveillance footage from the Casino. Joseph Neuberger then charted out the alleged acts in the statement with the surveillance footage. There were numerous inconsistencies, including footage showing the complainant standing beside B.L.C. rubbing his back and stroking his neck. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, commenced cross-examining the complainant with the inconsistencies. Unbelievably, the police never sought the surveillance and once disclosed by the defence, it was not reviewed. After one day of the preliminary hearing, the Crown had serious concerns about the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger, and his paralegal Grace Condello, prepared a new chart outlining the in court testimony as contrasted with both the original statement and surveillance, and then provided the chart to the Crown. As a result of the obvious inconsistencies, it was apparent that the complainant may have fabricated the entire allegation. As a result the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.G. (2012)

Client was found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed pressing cross-examination of the complainant, yielding numerous material inconsistencies and eventually an admission that both allegations may have been a figment of her imagination. Further cross-examination established that she was unsure if anything happened and may have just been telling stories to get attention. The two other witnesses called by the Crown were also extensively cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger in a manner that established that the complainant both before and after the alleged sexual assaults did not show any distress and in fact appeared to like the accused and wanted to spend time with the accused. No defence was called and the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.K. (2012)

Charges of Mischief under $5,000.00 and Assault Peace Officer, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged with allegedly assaulting an off-duty police officer who attempted to arrest the J.K. after J.K. allegedly damaged his car. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client assessed given certain issues pertaining to the client’s mental health and after a series of pre-trials with the Crown and the client undertaking a meaningful course of counselling, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M.(2012)

Client charged with assault with a weapon on her ex-husband withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was separated and living at another address. While returning the children after a weekend, the client saw the girlfriend of the complainant (ex-husband) in the matrimonial home. The client got upset and the complainant grabbed the client and physically removed her from the house. While being dragged out of the house, the client hit the complainant with a toy water gun. The complainant called police. Shockingly the client was actually charged with assault with a weapon. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the crown and was able to establish that the separation agreement stipulated that she still had rights to be at the matrimonial home and the ex-husband by physically removing the complainant committed an assault to which the client was legally permitted to defend herself. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Thomas (2012)

Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to young complainant after 5 day trial during which counsel Stacey Nichols extensively cross-examined complainant, complainant’s sister and mother. Ms. Nichols cross-examination revealed numerous inconsistencies and problems with the Crown’s evidence. The trial judge ultimately found that he could not rely on the evidence and all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Purcaru (2012)

Client acquitted of domestic related charges after 2 days of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Complainant, who was the Accused person’s ex-wife, was cross-examined extensively and was confronted with prior affidavits from family court proceedings which revealed serious problems with the veracity of her evidence. Charges dismissed.

Regina v. J.T. (2012)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, prior to the preliminary hearing. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting one of his daughters. The allegations arose through disclosure by a pastor in the church where the family attended. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the statements of the complainant, and the notes of the pastor and CAS. After having all statements transcribed, Joseph Neuberger, was able to analyze the statements and provided the Crown with a detailed chart of material internal inconsistencies arising not only from the deficient interviewing but tainting by the pastor who made the first disclosure to CAS and then police. In addition, the complainant was re-interviewed through the defence investigation. The re-interview shed light on a number of issues going to the reliability of the initial statement to police and CAS. After extensive discussions with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.L.H.F. (2012)

Charges of sexual assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was charged with allegedly having sexually groped two females, and possibly more, over a period of several weeks. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a forensic psychiatrist to assess the client, and after careful review of the evidence and the assessment, Joseph Neuberger negotiated a mental health diversion as the client was suffering from a disorder that impacted his ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts. Accordingly, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. H.R. and D.R. (2012)

Charges of mischief under $5,000.00 and assault (domestic) withdrawn on the second trial date, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. H.R. and D.R. were charged by H.R.’s former wife after a heating argument because the complainant covertly recorded private discussions between H.R. and D.R. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that the complainant had committed a criminal offence by intercepting private communications. In addition, the complainant, in her divorce action, claimed $100,000.00 for damages arising from prior alleged assaults. Joseph Neuberger worked closely with the family lawyer representing H.R. and obtained the transcript of an examination on the divorce action. As a result, the defence was able to establish material inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the complainant. Further, expert psychiatric evidence obtained by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger demonstrated that the complainant was acting in a highly provocative manner prior to and during her recording of the private discussion in an attempt to provoke a confrontation for the purposes of her laying charges. As a result of the damaged credibility of the complainant, the Crown withdrew all charges just prior to the commencement of the trial.

Regina v. Y.I.K. (2012)

Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic), Assault with a Weapon and Fail to Comply x 2 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial meetings. The client was charged by his ex-wife and oldest son with a series of assault related offences and was alleged to have breached his bail once his was released from jail on the initial set of charges. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain additional and valuable information through the family court proceedings, including Affidavit evidence that provided the basis to establish a motive to fabricate. In addition, one of the assault allegations and the fail to comply charges arose from alleged contact at an examination during a family court proceeding. Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend the proceeding, and was alleged to have spoken with and assaulted his son outside the examination room. Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials and Judicial pre-trials and successfully convinced the Crown that any alleged breach and assault while Mr. Y.I.K. was attending the examination was not only not a crime but was evidence of a “set up” by the complainant and the son. Both the son and the complainant (ex-wife) were not required to attend the examination but Mr. Y.I.K. was required to attend. Thus, by attending, the complainant and the son intended to initiate contact in order to get Mr. Y.I.K. charged with more offences. Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the family court documents and Affidavits and provided a detailed account of events that not only undermined the prosecution evidence, but also established a clear motive to fabricate. As a result, all charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. C.(C) (2012)

The client was charged with a sexual assault, and Neuberger & Partners reviewed the disclosure carefully, and had the complainant’s video statement transcribed. Neuberger & Partners did a complete work-up of the file, and gave his opinion to the Crown that lack of consent could never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 months after the charge was laid the Crown Attorney agreed with & Partners and the charge was completely withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. and R.S. (2012)

Charges of Assault with a Weapon and Assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The clients were charged with assault related offences arising from an altercation with security staff at BMO field after a soccer game. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete obtained additional statements of witnesses that undermined the facts as described by the main prosecution witnesses. In addition, the prosecution was unable to produce surveillance footage of the event that should have been preserved. As a result of evidence contradicting the main crown witnesses and the lack of an objective recoding of the alleged event, both clients signed common law peace bonds to keep the peace and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.M. (2012)

Charges of Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have been involved in a verbal and physical altercation with two female complainants after leaving a bar in the downtown Toronto club district. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements from staff at the bar and independent witnesses who described the event differently than the complainants in their statements to police. In fact, evidence obtained by Joseph Neuberger, strongly suggested the complainants and her friends were the aggressors. After detailed pre-trial discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges if W.M. signed a common law peace bond. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. B. P (2012)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. After reviewing disclosure, Defence lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish to the Crown Attorney that there were a number of frailties to the prosecution’s case including the possibility that this may be a case of mistaken identity. Accordingly, charges were withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial.

Regina v. P.W. (2012)

Client charged with sexual assault and sexual interference x 2, arising from an alleged inappropriate relationship with a student. The allegations encompassed a prolonged period of inappropriate contact including touching that spanned several months, including instances when away on trips with the Scouts. The client was suspended from teaching and had endured months of a lengthy investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a thorough review of all statements obtained in the criminal investigation and then conducted interviews of many potential defence witnesses that also gave extensive background information on the complainant. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, aggressively cross-examined the complainant to establish a motive to fabricate arising from P.W. firing the complainant from a part-time job and the removal of a lap top computer that the complainant wanted to keep. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain admissions from the complainant as to his own history of telling stories and lies to meet his own needs, and established clear inconsistencies on material facts. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the presiding Judge commented that there was a clear motive for the complainant to fabricate his evidence and that the complainant was not a credible witness. Following the preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger, that there was absolutely no prospect of conviction and that P.W. was wrongly accused. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

R. v. A. H (2012)

Client charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference was found Not Guilty after a five day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton. Defence Lawyer John Navarrete was able to establish, through vigorous cross-examination of the complainant, significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, undermining the credibility of the allegations. The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainant was unsafe to rely upon and A.H. was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. T. P (2012)

Client charged with Assault (X2), Assault with Weapon and Uttering Threat (X2) withdrawn at trial. After successfully arguing against the Crown’s Khan Application, which sought to introduce the complainant’s videotaped statement into evidence, Defence Lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2012)

Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order/peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant sought to restrain M.S. from any contact with her and their biological daughter who M.S. was seeking access to through the family court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the complete history of all proceedings between the parties and after careful review of the complainant’s statement, drafted a detailed response to the application outlining why the allegations and the request for a restraining order was an indirect attempt to thwart M.S.’s access to his daughter. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the assigned crown attorney that the complainant was attempting to alienate M.S. from his daughter and there were no genuine allegations. Accordingly the application was withdrawn.

Regina v. K.P. (2011)

Charge of assault with a weapon (domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the 911 call and the statement of the complainant prior to the first court appearance. After detailed review of the prosecution evidence, and with extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and in the circumstances of the alleged assault, it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. J(W) (2011)

Client was facing charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after argument with wife. On trial date lawyer subpoenaed records from cell phone company casting doubt on complainant’s version of events. Crown withdrew charge.

Regina v. M.D.R. (2011)

Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was charged with a bar related fight between the complainant, M.D.R. and two other persons, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a concussion, broken shoulder and various bruising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the witnesses and sought through the defence investigation statements of other independent witnesses who had viewed the altercation, as well as security video recordings from a nearby McDonald’s restaurant. Based upon the defence investigation, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that M.D.R. was only acting in self-defence of himself and his two friends as the complainant had been the aggressor. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.D.S. (2011)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault withdrawn after completion of three day preliminary hearing prior to setting a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. J.S. was charged with historical allegations arising from his care of a child during a four year relationship with the child’s mother. The allegations arose five years after the end of the relationship, by way of disclosure to a caregiver at a time when the child was under the care of the CAS. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation during which various records were obtained through the search of court records relating to the child complainant. Mr Neuberger found extensive details about the complainant, the mother and other information including psychological issues that would have a very significant impact on the child complainant’s ability to perceive, recollect and more importantly to tell the truth. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the child complainant, the mother of the complainant and other crown witnesses which yielded material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. After the preliminary hearing, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger wrote a detailed letter to the crown analyzing the case and establishing that the crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Superior court prior to setting the date for trial.

Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview various witnesses who were alleged to have seen portions of the altercation between J.B. and the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain statements from the bouncers of the bar where the altercation occurred. Mr. Neuberger conducted extensive pre-trials with the assigned crown, and provided the crown with statements taken during the defence investigation along with a detailed letter drafted by Joseph Neuberger outlining the deficiencies in the crowns case, as the defence asserted J.B. acted in self-defence. Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Neuberger and the charge was withdrawn.

R. v. M.(S.) 2011

Client charged with Sexual Assault. On Preliminary Hearing date lawyer convinces Crown that the case is weak and there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Charge withdrawn.

Regina v. KYK (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal on the basis that the client sign a peace bond and the complainant and the client complete 12 counselling sessions.

Regina v. X.W. and Q.Z. (2011)

Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients’ rights under section 11(b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried. The two clients were originally charged in October of 2009 with an alleged violent assault of a neighbour. The matter came to trial in February of 2011. However, due to the shortage of Mandarin accredited interpreters, the trial which was scheduled for two days could not be completed and new dates had to be selected in order to have an accredited interpreter available for trial. Due to the inability of the Crown to provide a trial in a reasonable time with an appropriate accredited Mandarin interpreter, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a motion to stay proceedings based upon an unreasonable delay. The judge agreed with the defence motion and accordingly the charges against the two defendants were stayed.

Regina v. R.L. (2011)

Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to demonstrate to the Crown a number of serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in comparison to other statements obtained through the defence investigation. Given the nature of the inconsistencies, and the defence statements, it was negotiated that R.L. sign a peace bond and the charges were accordingly withdrawn.

Regina v. N.B. (2011)

Charges of Assault x 2, Threaten Death x 2, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained email and text communications from the complainant (ex-wife) to the client, N.B., pre-dating and during the time frame of the alleged offences. The content of the communications undermined a significant portion of the evidence of the complainant as to the nature of the relationship. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown significant inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.K. (2011)

Client acquitted of Prowl by Night and Criminal Harassment x 2 (domestic related) after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.K. was alleged to have went on the property of his ex-wife and stalked her. The complainant also alleged a history of emotional and physical abuse. The history was relied upon by the Crown to establish the reasonable fear of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully investigated all historical allegations, in particular an allegation made by the complainant in the family court proceedings. Joseph Neuberger obtained all police occurrence reports and police notes, including evidence of two prior charges of the complainant in which the complainant resolved the charges by entering into peace bonds. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her evidence and on contradictory evidence obtained by Neuberger during the defence investigation. The defence also called evidence of two police officers to contradict the complainant. The judgment of the court found that the complainant was not a credible witness and in fact had lied in her family court affidavit. The Court went on to further find that there was no credible evidence to support the complainant’s evidence of C.K. ever having been violent. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all counts.

Regina v. J.B. (2011)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to persuade the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered into a peace bond and as such the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. S.S. (2011)

Client found not guilty of charges of Assault, Criminal Harassment x 2, Harassing phone calls, and Threaten Death x 2 after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was charged with a number of offences arising from the ending of his relationship with his spouse. The allegations included records of hundreds of phone calls and emails from S.S. that were allegedly directed at harassing the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and obtained recovery of additional email and text communications between the complainant and the client, S.S. In total there were well over 500 emails and text messages. Joseph Neuberger created three briefs of emails and text messages for cross-examination aimed at undermining the complainant’s evidence that the abuse was for the entirety of the relationship and continued while the couple was ending their relationship. In addition, one email recovered showed that there was in fact an assault perpetrated by the complainant on the client at or near the time of the alleged charge of assault that S.S. was charged with. Detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the complainant over two trial days established that in fact the complainant had only provided the police emails that were favourable to her version of events. In fact the complainant did not disclose contradictory emails. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the couple argued via email and text message about almost every conceivable issue in their relationship without the complainant ever mentioning anything about any abuse. Many of the emails put to the complainant in cross-examination established that complainant held S.S. in high regard and was very thankful for his patience with her issues. As a result of the cross-examination, S.S. was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. S.N. (2011)

Client found not guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault (Domestic related charges) after a 7 day jury trial in the Superior Court in Toronto. Client was alleged to have brutally assaulted and sexually assaulted his common law spouse over a period of three years. The prosecution called the complainant, the complainant’s mother in relation to timely disclosure to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and a counsellor who had seen S.N. during the relationship wherein S.N. had admitted to “hitting” the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed all of the pleadings and affidavits in the family court proceeding. The complainant had made an allegation in the family court proceeding of a specific instance of child abuse that was reported to the police. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the police records including the police notes through a Freedom of Information Act application. The records specifically refuted the allegation of child abuse. In addition, certain evidence of the complainant was in contradiction to other evidence gathered through the defence investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the two main prosecution witnesses, and through cross-examination was able to establish three instances of fabrication of allegations, and establish collusion between the two prosecution witnesses. Joseph Neuberger alleged in the defence that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in order to obtain sole custody of the one child of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger delivered a detailed two hour closing to the jury and after three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. J.N. v. Durham Regional Police 2011

Durham Regional Police ordered to expunge record of a withdrawn domestic assault charge from their Criminal Information Request database. Neuberger & Partners appear before Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2011)

Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of bank records and text messages supporting the defence theory that the allegations were motivated by the complainant’s desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. D.F. (2011)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful analysis of the evidence, and during lengthy negotiations with the Crown’s office, was able to establish that the facts as disclosed by the complainant, did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to commit a sexual assault but rather were misconstrued by the complainant as to the client’s intended actions. Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.W.G. (2011)

Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After extensive review of the prosecution evidence including surveillance recordings from the locations where the acts were alleged to have occurred (TTC stations) by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and detailed cross-examination of the complainant giving rise to serious inconsistencies between the evidence and the surveillance recordings, the Crown agreed with the defence that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.

Regina v. T.B. (2011)

Client acquitted of sexual assault after two week jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. T.B., a professional, had met the complainant in 2005 and began and productive business relationship with her. On the night of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant along with two other business associates attended T.B.’s home for a dinner. During the evening all parties drank wine. The complainant and her professed boyfriend (one of the business associates) slept at T.B.’s residence due to being intoxicated. The complainant was woken the next morning by her boyfriend and found to be naked. The complainant alleged that T.B. had sexually assaulted her during the night when she was unconscious. The police took a statement from the complainant and her boyfriend, and then arrested T.B.. Sexual assault kit examination revealed DNA including semen that was found to be consistent with T.B.’s DNA profile. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had a private investigator take a statement from the remaining person who attended the dinner but was not interviewed by police. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, the complainant’s boyfriend, crown experts including a toxicologist and nurse, in accordance with the defence theory that the complainant had consented to sexual contact. In addition, the defence raised a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a “blackout” as opposed to being unconscious. The defence was able to establish significant inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, as well as establish the collusion of the complainant and her boyfriend in the content of their evidence. In closing argument to the jury, Joseph Neuberger raised significant issues regarding the lack of important evidence including failure by the police to search T.B.’s residence and the Crown’s failure to tendered important forensic evidence. After 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. Q.P. (2011)

Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant’s story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.M. (2010)

Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.’s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. D.M. (Y.O.) (2010)

Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. M.V. (2010)

Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L. H. (2010)

Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete’s request. Charges were ultimately withdrawn.

R. v. L.S. (2010)

Client was charged with assault on a family member in Toronto. Matter was set down for trial. Mr. Navarrete filed various Charter applications in defence of his client. After the Crown reviewed the case and the applications, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in exchange for a peace bond.

Regina v. L.M. (2010)

Client charged with a sexual assault at his place of employment involving a customer. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges. Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney’s Office to discuss various legal issues surrounding the charge, facts and the client’s previous exemplary life. After which, the Crown agreed to withdraw the sexual assault charge and the client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. L.D. (2010)

Charges of breach of recognizance stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. On the morning of trial, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown’s case against L.D. despite the fact that the complainant was insistent on proceeding with the case. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

R. v. P. D. (2010)

Client acquitted on charges of breach of recognizance (X3) stemming from an alleged contact breach with a hostile complainant in an original domestic assault case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton. During the trial, Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the complainant on her allegations and had her admit that she forgot very important and serious details. Ultimately, the presiding Judge did not find her evidence reliable or credible to warrant a conviction.

R. v. D.G. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault was withdrawn at the early stages of the criminal proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office and was able to demonstrate the frailties in the Crown’s case. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.G. return to his home with his partner. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that the charges would be withdrawn upon completion of PARS and that the client would enter a peace bond. Charges were withdrawn and client entered into a peace bond.

Regina v. D.M. (2010)

Client acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference after a three day trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Belleville. The client was charged after having met the complainant through an internet chat site. The complainant had mislead D.M. about her real age. Police were called by the parents of the complainant when she failed to return home after a walk. When the police found the complainant in the company of D.M., the police conducted an investigation into the complainant’s activities with D.M. and as a result charges were laid. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols worked carefully through three detailed statements by the complainant, volumes of text message and internet chat logs, and a large volume of disclosure including forensic and crime scene pictures, videos and reports. The defence brought several motions at trial to exclude various pieces of the prosecution’s evidence, including a re-enactment video, and the evidence of three witnesses who were called to provide age recognition evidence. In addition Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger assailed photographs taken of the complainant several hours after the meeting with D.M. which were tendered by the Crown to establish that given the complainant’s youthful appearance, D.M. failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the complainant pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the police had failed to protect the continuity of the complainant’s appearance sufficiently, resulting in pictures that were not representative of the complainant’s appearance earlier in the evening when she met with D.M. The defence further argued that given the content of the text and internet chats, as well as the evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence to support a defence of honest but mistaken belief of age, wherein D.M. had indeed taken all reasonable steps. There were unusual and unique facts that the defence was able to present to successfully challenge the prosecution’s case and as a result D.M. was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. G.B. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained an computer expert to recover deleted data and emails from the complainant, establishing a strong motive to fabricate an allegation of assault in order to gain an advantage in the family court proceedings. As a result of the defence investigation, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.Z. (2010)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and forcible confinement, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, prior to trial. Based upon the defence investigation, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal of all three charges, particularly in light of inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement and emails sent between the parties at the time of the alleged offences.

Regina v. A.H. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, prior to trial. The client was charged with a sexual assault in relation to his sister-in-law. The allegations were only disclosed to police several months after the alleged assault. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through the defence investigation that the reporting of the allegation coincided with a particular argument in the family, resulting in the client’s wife and sister, the complainant, becoming estranged. As a result of additional inconsistencies undermining the credibility of the complainant, and the concern regarding the veracity of the compliant, the charges were withdrawn prior to the trial date.

Regina v. A.B. (2010)

Charges of Sexual Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault x 4 (Domestic) and Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance x 3, were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, just prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted several extensive judicial pre-trials in order to set out the basis of the defence, in particular securing evidence establishing that the main charges were part of an elaborate scheme in which fabricated allegations were used to secure exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and to gain an advantage in Family court. Joseph Neuberger established a number of inconsistencies that significantly undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result of extensive defence work, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Gilbert (2010)

Client of acquitted of domestic assault after lengthy cross-examination of the Complainant and other witnesses revealed material inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence.

Regina v. J.H. (2010)

Charge of assault bodily harm (domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the complainant had been the party to initiate a fist fight with J.H. As a result, J.H. reacted in self-defence in repelling the attack. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn at trial.

Regina v. T.G. (2010)

Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged an assault just prior to the commencement of a family court motion in which the accused, T.G., sought custody and access to their son. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain information related to charges that the complainant was facing along with a large volume of family court documents that demonstrated several material inconsistencies in the complainant’s story. In addition, the case took 16 months to come to trial. As a result, a defence application motion was filed by Mr. Neuberger to stay the proceedings for delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Charter, which protects the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In light of the strong defence application for a stay and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. T.H. (2010)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Mischief Under withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the allegation of assault was in fact the client repelling the complainant when she had initially assaulted him. The evidence of the complainant was ambiguous on the actual sequence of the alleged assault and after careful analysis of the statement, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that given the client’s defensive actions, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.C. (2010)

Charges of criminal harassment, harassing phone calls, assault and forcible confinement (domestic), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and received numerous email and text communications between the complainant and the client. In addition a defence investigation into the complainant’s face book site yielded information that combined with the information from the email and text messages undermined the complainant’s evidence. In addition, careful legal analysis of the facts underlying the charges, supported Joseph Neuberger’s position that many of the complained actions were possibly uncomfortable for the complainant, but understandable given the relationship and most importantly were not criminal. The client, being a military police officer, had also explained much of the alleged behaviour consistent with the defence position. After extensive written argument to the crown, the crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

Regina v. Faqiryar (2010)

Client acquitted of assault after cross-examination of the Complainant by defence counsel Stacey Nichols revealed major inconsistencies in the identification evidence. The Trial Judge found that there was no evidence that the Accused was the actual culprit and dismissed the charge.

Regina v. J.P. (2010)

Charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial meetings with the Crown and police. The client was alleged to have been involved in a human trafficking ring and to have sexually assaulted a female complainant, who had come over from Mexico, during the course of a four day trip through northern Ontario. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger transcribed all witness statements and created a detailed chart of all inconsistencies, as well as having drafted detailed disclosure requests seeking various critical pieces of information that were alleged to have been provided by the complainant. In particular, the complainant had made a refugee claim with one of the reasons to remain in Canada as being the victimization arising from the alleged sexual assault. A will-say was prepared by the lawyer acting on the immigration case for the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger relentlessly pursued the disclosure of this will-say and argued that the basis of the case was a fabricated allegation to allow the complainant to remain in Canada. A detailed written argument with source documents supporting the defence position was prepared by Joseph Neuberger and submitted to the Crown for their assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown accepted the argument and position put forth by Joseph Neuberger and as a result the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.T. (2010)

charges of domestic assault and mischief to property were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was alleged to have assaulted his wife after an argument regarding his suspicions of infidelity and then destroyed some of her personal belongings. While returning to Toronto from a business trip, the client was arrested and held for a bail hearing. After his release from custody, various bail variations were sought by the defence to allow the client greater freedom to reconstruct his life. The statement of the complainant, once analyzed by the defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, yielded a wide range of evidentiary areas for cross-examination. During extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown prosecutor, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish sufficient doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant’s version of events, that the charges were withdrawn in favour of a section 810 peace bond.

Regina v. V.W. (2010)

loitation x 3, withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The client was charged with numerous allegations involving BDSM activities with his former spouse. The complainant alleged that she had never consented to such activities and was essentially held captive by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained recorded, in-person, conversations between the client and his wife, that were then transcribed and detailed in chart format contradicting the facts alleged by the complainant. In addition, after extensive technical investigation, the defence was also able to recover several text and emails between the client and the complainant prior to their marriage confirming her interest in marrying someone who was interested in BDSM play, and evidencing, not only her desire, but willingness to purchase equipment to enjoy such play. Additional defence investigation revealed a financial motive for the complainant to allege criminal allegations of sexual assault in order to obtain a financial payoff. In light of all of the evidence gathered by Joseph Neuberger, and then presented over the course of several meetings and judicial pre-trials, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, and accordingly all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A. B. (2010)

Client was charged with Sexual Assault x 7, Sexual Interference x 7, Sexual Exploitation, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. All charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was originally charged with two counts of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference, and released after a contentious bail hearing. The client was then arrested again after further statements were provided by the complainants, resulting in numerous additional sexual related charges. The client was released on bail after a lengthy second bail hearing. Over the course of several months, the defence carefully analyzed the numerous statements provided by the complainants, and compared the evidence against numerous emails and text messages sent by the complainants. There were extensive communications that once compared with the evidence of the complainants, undermined their evidence and supported the defence in the case. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger disclosed email communications and then requested a re-interview of the complainants by a different police officer. After further statements were taken, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainants had fabricated much of their evidence. This fatally impaired the prosecution and resulted in all charges being withdrawn.

Regina v. C.J.B. (2010)

Client was charged with sexual assault x 2, and sexual interference x 2. Charges were withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive defence discussions with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger transcribed all video statements provided by the prosecution and carefully analyzed, and broke down each statement in chart form to establish inconsistencies that ultimately undermined the evidence for the prosecution, thereby resulting in the withdrawal of the charges.

Regina vs. S.(S.) (2010)

Client acquitted of charges of Domestic Assault and Threatening Death after lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined Complainant revealing that actions of accused were in self-defence and also revealing faulty memory on behalf of the Complainant relating to recollection of actual threat.

Regina v. J.M. (2010)

Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, and Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established reliability issues with the Crown’s case. Further, the defence investigation, including the use of a private investigator hired by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, produced photographs of the alleged crime scene and surrounding area, which assisted in undermining the evidence of the complainant. Finally, the client’s evidence was accepted at trial. Accordingly, all charges against the client was dismissed.

Regina v. A.N. (2010)

Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 3, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to review injuries sustained by the client. The results established that the client was assaulted in a manner not consistent with the evidence of the three police officers. Further, defence interviews of various potential defence witnesses, established that the client was either wrongly identified as a person who had assaulted the police or was attacked by police without physical provocation on the part of the client. Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take formal statements from the defence witnesses and based upon all of the defence evidence, the crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A. (2010)

Charges of Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive review of the evidence with the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a lawful purpose for the client’s involvement with police and that the police acted in a hasty manner resulting in an unnecessary confrontation that did not involve any criminal conduct on the part of the client.

Regina v. S.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault and Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that evidence of the complainant’s allegations was not admissible. In addition, evidence obtained from a recorded call from the complainant to the client’s relative undermined her credibility. As such, all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. R.V. (2010)

Client found not guilty of assault, utter death threats and fail to comply (domestic), after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, successfully challenged the admissibility of the DVD recorded statement of the complainant and established a Charter violation of the client’s statement to police. The complainant failed to recall key aspects of the case and the Crown sought to introduce the complainant’s statement in order to prove its case. The defence was able to exclude the statement, on the basis of reliability, by proving the method of questioning by the police was deficient and not a proper translation of the complainant’s evidence. Given the lack of evidence with the exclusion of the statements, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. A.T. (2010)

Client found not guilty of Assault (Domestic) after a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the extensively complaint on the 911 call, and the notes of officers regarding her utterances at the time of investigation, establishing motive to for the complainant to have fabricated the allegation. There were no visible injuries, when one would expect injuries given the statement of the complainant. Accordingly, Mr Neuberger was able to undermine the Crown’s case and the client was acquitted.

Regina v. D.A. (2009)

Client charged with a domestic assault on his wife, held in custody for bail and released on a recognizance of bail. Well before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Orangeville, client retained John Navarrete to assist him with the charges and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having D.A. return to his home with his wife and by the first court appearance, the Crown decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Thus the charges was withdrawn.

R.v. (D.)H. 2009

Neuberger & Partners defended this client on a charge of Fail to Comply with Recognizance for breaking his bail while on release for the Charge of Aggravated Assault. The Court in Milton rendered a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. T.P. (2009)

Charges of Public Mischief, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault x 5 (Domestic), and Mischief Over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client having went to the police to complain about her boyfriend’s assaultive conduct, was eventually charged by police after the police took a three hour statement from the boyfriend. The police and Crown alleged that the client intentionally made up the original allegation of assault. The client was charged with numerous assault offences, in addition to the public mischief and obstruct allegations. The boyfriend (complainant) had been in regular contact with the client by email and text messages. He continued to contact the complainant even after she was charged with the offences. He continued to call and harass her. Upon instruction by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the client began to record the calls. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all email and text messages prior to the allegations and after. In total there were over 300 email and text messages. Mr. Neuberger, along with his senior law clerk, reviewed each communication, and transcribed the telephone calls. Mr. Neuberger developed a binder of the communications, and developed a chart setting out all inconsistencies between the emails and text messages with the statement of the boyfriend/complainant. The emails and text messages, and the recorded calls, undermined the credibility of the boyfriend’s statement. The chart developed by Mr. Neuberger and his senior law clerk clearly established very critical and material inconsistencies. A further chart was developed by Mr. Neuberger with “consistencies” between the email and text messages and the statement of the client/accused. On November 26, 2009, the Crown indicated on record that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because of Joseph Neuberger providing a very thorough and detailed analysis of the evidence, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.W. (2009)

Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged by his former wife with allegedly making harassing phone calls and continuing to attend her place of employment. All of the calls were recorded by the complainant. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully transcribed and reviewed in detail each call. In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all family court documents, including the Affidavits of the complainant. Mr. Neuberger provided the Crown with a detailed analysis of the calls and the statement of the complainant with reference to the Family Court proceedings and Affidavits. As a result, the defence was able to establish that the client’s calls were in response to provocative and aggressive actions taken by the complainant, and as such the Crown agreed that there was no crime committed. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn. The Crown commended Mr. Neuberger for his usual thorough analysis of the case, resulting in the withdrawal.

Regina v. G.C. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2, and Mischief x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established material inconsistencies between various statements made by the complainant that undermined the complainant’s credibility. The defence also established to the crown that defence witnesses were able to contradict the complainant’s evidence. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.D. (2009)

Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threaten Death and Mischief withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger established that a particular Crown witness was not properly subpoenaed to court and without the witness, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The inconsistencies between the complainant and the main Crown witness undermined the evidence for the Crown. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Sexual Interference x 3 withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed consideration of the evidence. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the evidence was weak with inherent contradictions. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Tahir (2009)

Client found not guilty of Threaten Death x 2, Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was alleged, after having found his girlfriend with another man, to have threatened and assaulted his girlfriend and then threatened the other male. The client was also alleged to have grabbed a knife and acted in a threatening manner with the knife. After thorough cross-examination of the Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger and credible evidence given by the client, all charges were dismissed by the trial judge.

Regina v. A.K. (2009)

Charges of Assault x 3 (domestic) were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown regarding the vagueness of the statement of the complainant. Based upon defence material provided by Joseph Neuberger the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. G.S. (2009)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge in the Ontario Court of Justice. The allegation involved sexual contact over a four hour period with an employee in a store. All sexual contact was alleged to have occurred in a back room with no surveillance cameras. The defence sought production of four hours of surveillance for the cameras in the store. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the DVD surveillance recordings producing a detailed frame by frame and second by second chart outlining all actions of the client and the complainant. Through detailed examination, the defence was able to establish that the actions of the complainant did not match her story and all timing and details as provided by the complainant were contradicted by the recorded surveillance. As such, the client was found not guilty of the charge.

Regina v. B.M. (2009)

Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Utter Death Threats, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the inconsistencies in the statements of the Crown witnesses were extremely difficult to overcome. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G. (2009)

Uttering threats charge in Halifax. Neuberger & Partners appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia Court with client on Uttering Threats Charge, which was withdrawn as trial was to commence.

Regina v. A.M. (2009)

Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation. The complainant and the client were known to each other only through the accused provision of transportation services for the complainant. The complainant alleged that Mr. A.M. had sexually assaulted her during transport one morning. Detailed defence investigation about the timing of the alleged sexual assault established that during the time frame that the complainant stated the sexual assault occurred, A.M. never drove the complainant in the mornings. Records obtained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger undermined the timing of the allegations. Other detailed defence preparation established material inconsistencies in the complainant’s identification of A.M. Accordingly, A.M. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. J.Y. (2009)

Client acquitted of Intimidation x 3, Criminal Harassment x 3, Utter Death Treats, and Assault (Domestic) after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant with the use of prior statements, including birthday cards, Valentine’s Day cards and other related writings, resulted in undermining the credibility of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of four hours yielding numerous inconsistencies and successfully developed the defence. As a result the client was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. V.I. (2009)

Charges of assault and assault bodily harm withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial as a result of the defence investigation producing contradictory evidence to the complainant’s versions of events, including obtaining an expert dental report establishing that the alleged injury could not have been caused by the client. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained detailed statement from a witness that again undermined the evidence of the complainant. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.A. (2009)

Charges of criminal harassment and assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed defence investigation establishing that the complainant fabricated the allegations.

Regina v. H.D. (2009)

Charges of Domestic assault x 6, Assault and Fail to Comply with bail x 4 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial defence disclosure and discussions with the Crown Attorney. The prosecution evidence alleged that the client, during the course of committing an assault on his wife, also self-inflicted head and facials injuries (on himself) for which he sought to blame one of the complainant’s witnesses as the perpetrator. The investigating police officers viewed the injuries to H.D. (Client) and determined that they were self-inflicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commenced an investigation into the reasons for the complainant to fabricate the allegations. Joseph Neuberger retained three medical experts and obtained opinion evidence that the injuries sustained by his client were not self-inflicted. As well the injury sustained by the complainant was not consistent with her description of how she stated that she was assaulted. In addition the defence obtained defence witness statements undermining the stories of the Crown witnesses. All defence evidence was presented in a defence forensic binder put together by Joseph Neuberger. The defence evidence compelled a determination that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as against H.D. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. O.G. (2009)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted defence investigation yielding two defence witness statements that undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)

Charges of Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to trial pursuant to negotiation with Crown regarding the reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Hoyte (2009)

Client acquitted of Domestic Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to comprehensive cross-examination of Complainant and detailed presentation of defence evidence.

Regina v. Page-Cole (2008)

Charges of Aggravated Assault withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed presentation of evidence undermining the evidence of the main Crown witness.

Regina v. M.R. (2008)

Charges of assault police officer x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after directed challenge to the force used in apprehending the client.

Regina v. Pealow (2008)

Client found not guilty of a charge of utter death threat (domestic) in the Ontario Court of Justice after two day trial. The Crown conceded a verdict of not guilty after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger completed his cross-examination of the complainant.

Regina v. V.D. (2008)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a five day jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the Crown witnesses arising from extensive preparation proved effective in undermining the credibility of the complainant and the supporting Crown witness. A strong jury closing resulted in a jury verdict of not guilty within 1 hour 20 minutes of the jury deliberating.

Regina v. Rohani (2008)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively pursued defence investigation on fabrication by the complainant. Crown withdrew as they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. L.D. (2008)

Domestic charges withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to pressure by defence lawyer Ms. Stacey Nichols to assess the Crown’s reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Williams (2008)

Client found not guilty of possession of a loaded handgun and carry concealed weapon after a two week jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court. our Defence lawyer advanced a duress argument, such that the client held the weapon under threat of death. After careful and detailed cross-examination of crown witnesses, which supported the behaviour of the client at the time of investigation and arrest consistent with someone who might have been frightened by a threat of harm, and a strong jury closing, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. Graham (2008)

Charges of domestic assault and fail to comply withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued successfully a Charter violation of the client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. Vigorous pursuit of full disclosure and setting a trial date established that the defence was seeking the earliest possible trial date. The delay of 11.5 months, and consequently the charges were withdrawn

Regina v. D.J. (2008)

Client acquitted of Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement, Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy to Commit Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to skillful cross-examination of witnesses and legal argument by Ms. Stacey Nichols which revealed that Crown case did not meet required standard for conviction.

Regina v. Thomas (2008)

Client acquitted of domestic assault at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice following cross-examination of the complaint demonstrating numerous instances of inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of the allegations and a complete lack of evidence of an assault.

Regina v. M.S. (2008)

Client found not guilty of domestic assault after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger focused on instances of past aggressive behaviour by the complainant including previously biting the client and implausible and exaggerated aspects of her evidence.

Regina v. Meek (2008)

Charges of domestic assault x 3 and fail to appear withdrawn prior to trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established lack of credibility of the complainant’s allegations.

Regina v. S.M. (2008)

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.

Regina v. De Karic (2008)

Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and assault bodily harm in the Ontario Court of Justice after vigorous defence by Joseph Neuberger including careful attention to the set date phase of the proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charge.

Regina v. Szymanski (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault discharged at the Preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive and detailed cross-examination of the Crown witnesses including undermining the credibility of the complainant, and establishing that the complainant had motive to fabricate.

Regina v. C.S. (2007)

Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger established that accused was assaulted first and sustained injury caused by the complainant.

Regina v. Kovachev (2007)

The client was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. Four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Campling. Client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Johnston (2007)

Charges of domestic assault, threaten death and careless storage of ammunition withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence investigation into complainant’s attempts to extort a financial settlement in the Family law proceedings. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained the services of a private investigator and obtained statements and a recording of voice message left that seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the domestic assault and threatening allegations were withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. A.S. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant undermined the reliability of the evidence of the complainant. The trial judge accepted defence counsel Joseph Neuberger’s submissions on the lack of plausibility of the various allegations. Accordingly, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Hassen (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury after counsel’s thorough cross-examination of complainant revealed contradictions and inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence.

Regina v. P.M. (2007)

After trial, client found not guilty of domestic assault charges arising from York Regional Police investigation in Newmarket.

Regina v. W.W. (2007)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault x 2, sexual interference x 2, arising from historical sexual assault allegations in the Superior Court of Justice after a three day trial. At the preliminary hearing, detailed and comprehensive cross-examination produced transcripts of evidence that provided fruitful support for the defence theory at trial. During the Superior Court trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger relentlessly cross-examined both complainants on all aspects of their evidence including inconsistencies generated by the transcripts from the preliminary hearing and video taped statements. Through cross-examination the defence theory was put to each witness. At the end of the cross-examination of both complainants, the Crown conceded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction and directed the court to dismiss all four charges.

Regina v. D.V. (2007)

Charges of Sexual Assault and Gang Sexual Assault stayed at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Relentless defence requests by Joseph Neuberger for detailed disclosure, and comprehensive examination of the Crown evidence resulted in the Crown being delayed in providing the case to the defence. By the time of the preliminary hearing, with the significant delay, inconsistencies in the Crown’s evidence and the use of forensic evidence supporting the client’s denial of the allegations resulted in the charges being stayed.

Regina v. R.M. (2007)

Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Cross- examination of the complainant developed the defence theory that all actions alleged were consensual. Further, cross-examination established numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant as compared to her DVD statement. Consequently, the Justice found the client not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.T. (2007)

Charge of sexual assault withdrawn after successful mistrial application sought by Joseph Neuberger in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. Sibte (2007)

Client acquitted of sexual assault charge after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed cross examination by Joseph Neuberger undermined the reliability of the complainant’s allegations resulting in a finding of not guilty.

Regina v. I.D. (2007)

Charges of utter death threats x 2, and assault (Domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence analysis of the statements of witnesses and the complainants establishing that the allegations could not have occurred. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M(L) (2006)

Charges of Robbery withdrawn by Crown Attorney after counsel successfully argues that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction due to identity issues.

Regina v. Young (2006)

Client acquitted of criminal harassment after thorough cross-examination of Complainant. Judge agrees pursuant to counsel’s submissions that offence of criminal harassment not made out.

Regina v. Ahmad (2006)

Five charges of sexual assault dismissed after defence cross-examination of the Complainant pinpointing numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.

Regina v. Tuitt (2006)

Charges of Threatening and Fail to Comply with Recognizance withdrawn by Crown Attorney after Defence points out difficulties with the anticipated evidence and problems with the charging documents.

Regina v. D.S. (2006)

Client found not guilty of sexual assault and assault after 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all Crown witnesses, including the complainant and her witnesses. Extensive preparation of the client also assisted in the client being believed by the Judge and based upon the credibility issues of the complainant and her witnesses, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Simpson (2006)

Charges of Assault x 4 (Domestic), Threaten Death and Fail to Comply all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence investigation disclosing numerous inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence and fabrication of other allegations.

Regina v. Zamkovoj (2006)

Two counts of assault, one count of threatening death and one count of breached probation withdrawn after Complainant does not attend court and Crown asks for adjournment to secure her attendance. Counsel presented recanting statement taken from Complainant by private investigator, forming basis for Judge not granting adjournment and reason why charges ultimately withdrawn.

Past results do not guarantee success in any particular case.

Dedicated to Defending our Clients

CONTACT INFORMATION


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