About Our Firm
Neuberger & Partners LLP – Domestic Assault Lawyers in Toronto
Quality Is Our Foundation
Behind every case, we see not only facts and law, but a life and a future at risk. Understanding the gravity of our clients’ situations, we take a sophisticated and comprehensive approach to defending their rights.
Backed by years of experience as the best Domestic Assault lawyers in Toronto, we have seen the tremendous value and tangible results that come from:
- Detailed, up-front case preparation
- Sharing of knowledge within our legal team
- Collaboration with complementary professionals as expert witnesses
- Thorough client and witness preparation
Practice Areas
Sex Crimes & Domestic Offences
Sexual assault cases are as varied on issues as there are cases in the system. These cases can be based on historical allegations, allegations arising from domestic or intrapersonal relations (dating, office, etc.), or can arise from misidentification…
Violent Offences
Violent crimes defence, particularly for crimes involving assault, demands the attention of experienced and highly capable lawyers who understand how to fully prepare a case for trial. With potential penalties that can include fines, court-ordered…
Contact Our Domestic Assault Lawyers in Toronto
Phone
(416) 364-3111
Fax
(416) 364-3271
Recent Successes
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.
Charges related to human trafficking of procuring, advertising, living of the avails, money laundering and criminal organization all withdrawn prior to commencing the preliminary hearing. The client was charged along with other parties in relation to a human trafficking operation. Numerous search warrants were executed, based on a three-year investigation by police including massive amount of surveillance and undercover investigations. Joseph Neuberger, Christopher Assie and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence team. After extensive analysis of the evidence, it because clear that there was no direct evidence linking S.S. to the operation of the organization. The alleged laundering and financial side of the case again could not be directly linked the proceeds from the operation. Further, there was a limited evidentiary basis for the Crown prosecution to even establish willful blindness. As a result, the charges of human trafficking were withdrawn.
RB was charged with an escalating series of domestic offences: assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and Criminal Harassment, culminating with an alleged Arson Damaging Property and Arson Endangering Life. The Crown sought R.B.’s detention pre-trial, on the basis that RB was a danger to the public. Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners, a leading criminal defence firm in Toronto, conducted the bail hearing. Liam Thompson prepared a strong release plan with two sureties. After extensive submissions and a hard-fought hearing, the Court released RB on bail.
E.P. was charged with an Aggravated Sexual Assault. The Crown sought to detain E.P. pre-trial, on the basis that he was a danger to the public and that reasonable members of the public would be shocked if he were released on bail. After receiving disclosure, Liam Thompson of Neuberger & Partners, leading Toronto criminal lawyers, prepared detailed submissions that pointed out the flaws and weaknesses in the Crown’s case. After detailed submissions, the Court agreed with Mr. Thompson, and E.P. was released on his own recognizance.
Lawyers at Neuberger & Partners were involved in this constitutional challenge to three provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to Canada’s prostitution laws. After a lengthy period of gathering evidence from around the world and presenting it to Her Honour Justice Himel of the Superior Court of Ontario, all three provisions involving Keeping a Common Bawdy House, Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution and Living Off the Avails of Prostitution were struck down as unconstitutional, presenting a landmark decision that will reverberate for many years. Her Honour found, pursuant to evidence and argument presented by counsel, that these three sections “…force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person”, also holding that the laws as they stand now contribute to the danger faced by prostitutes on a daily basis.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn prior to the commencement of second date for trial, Toronto. M.K. was charged with sexual assault after ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The complainant alleged that during the start of their relationship, she had attended his apartment for a party during which she became intoxicated. The complainant stated that she was so drunk that she had to crawl to the bathroom. At some point she stated that M.K. came into the bedroom and had sex with her without her consent and that she did not have the capacity to consent. Joseph Neuberger, Neuberger & Partners LLP, was retained to defend the case. Diana Davison assisted. The defence brought a voluminous 276/278 application to admit numerous messages between the parties as well as photographs and other sexual history evidence. The messages were relevant to rebut her characterization of the relationship which included her pursuit of him and demand for a more formal relationship. The complainant only went to the police after M.K. slowly spent less time with the complainant and then sent her a message about him moving to Vancouver for family issues. The complainant took the message as an insult as to how he characterized their relationship and then alleged that he had sexually assaulted her at the start of their relationship. In addition, five defence witnesses were interviewed and subpoenaed to attend the trial as their evidence contradicted the complainant’s intoxication level on the night in question, and supported the defence narrative that the complainant was awake, fully aware and demanding that his friends end the party and he to come to bed. The evidence of the defence witnesses materially contradicted a core element of the complainant’s version of events, particularly her incapacity. The defence evidence was clear, she was not drunk. The matter was set for trial but did not get started due to Court availability. So, it was set down for trial in February 2024. Just before the commencement of the trial, the Crown agreed with the Joseph Neuberger’s assessment of the case thus resulting in the charge of Sex Assault being withdrawn.
Charges of Possession Loaded Restricted Firearm without Licence (x2), Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Possession of Cannabis for Distribution, Possession of Controlled Substance for Trafficking withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Newmarket. H.S. was accused of being part of a gang which had committed a string of violent late night home invasions involving firearms and serious assaults on the occupants. The police investigation led to an address where the suspects lived. Following the execution of a search warrant, police found numerous weapons, drugs, body armour and proceeds of crime in the living room. The occupants were all arrested. H.S retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. H.S. had nothing to do with the alleged crimes as he was only a tenant at the address where he rented a room. Extensive pre-trials were conducted with the Crown to demonstrate that H.S. had no involvement and that the Crown’s own evidence confirmed this due to a lack of fingerprints or any other evidence connecting H.S. to the gang. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges after the client provided a statutory declaration prepared by Michael Bury.
Charges of Possession of Cannabis for the purpose of Trafficking/Distributing, Possess Cannabis for the Purpose of Selling, Distribute Cannabis and Cultivate Substance, all withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Brampton. Both of these gentlemen have medical authorization to grow and possess. They grew and stored at a communal operation that was also licenced. Unfortunately, an undercover investigation led to arrests for a large-scale cultivation and trafficking scheme in which J.C. and W.C. were included. Joseph Neuberger and Christopher Assie from Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, were retained as the defence lawyers. The assigned Crown was someone Joseph Neuberger had worked with on prior large scale drug cases and very soon after the arrests, Joseph and Chris had pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The defence provided the valid licences as well as a listing of their grow operation and use. The disclosure was massive including a 500-page Information to Obtain that was the basis of the warrant to search the premises in question. After careful review, there was NO evidence to support any inference that J.C. or W.C. had any involvement with the allegations of drug trafficking. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
X.C. was charged with Fraud Under $5,000 out of Toronto courthouse. X.C. was looking at deals to book a hotel in downtown Toronto. X.C. found an agent through WeChat that offered her to use hotel points and save significantly on the hotel costs. X.C. agreed and went on to stay at a hotel in downtown Toronto. While there, an owner of the hotel points contacted the hotel and advised that she has not authorized the use of her hotel points. X.C. was arrested for illegally using the hotel points to stay at the hotel. X.C. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya and Daisy went through WeChat messages and organized them for the Crown Attorney. Furthermore, Mariya and Daisy put together a package that included X.C.’s background, her excellent grades, future aspirations and reference letters. Together with the WeChat messages and carefully drafted X.C.’s version of events, a package was presented to the Crown Attorney. After X.C. made a restitution to the hotel, the charge of Fraud Under was withdrawn.
Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 x 2, Utter Forged Document x 2 and Obtain Credit under False Presences all withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in Newmarket. Both individuals were starting a business and were approached by a financial broker to assist with equipment financing and grants. The broker seemed perfectly professional and assisted J.C. and K.D. to obtain various grants and loans to assist with the business startup. The business became a success and expanded. The broker took a percentage of the financing and then years passed. An OPP investigation into the broker in question uncovered that all supporting documentation had been falsified to obtain the said loans and grants. J.C. and K.D. were identified as allegedly part of the scheme to defraud the government and banks. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, York Region Criminal Lawyers, were retained to defend the charges. After obtaining the disclosure, including co-accused statements, and the source documents for the loans and grants, Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko, engaged in multiple meetings with the clients and then the assigned Crown to sort out where the supporting information came from. Eventually, the defence established that the documentation completed was subsequently altered by the broker and the defence obtained hundreds of text messages between the clients and the broker to establish the broker was misleading them and likely many other people she had approached. After providing important defence disclosure to the Crown, all charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of Second-Degree Murder and Manslaughter after three-week jury trial, Toronto. A.S. was alleged to have assisted in the murder of a rival gang member. Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP was retained as the defence lawyer. At trial, through cross-examination, Christopher was able to establish through Crown eyewitnesses, that A.S. was not observed taking any actions in an altercation that broke out with a friend of A.S.. In fact, it was the friend who had caused the death of the other party. Cross-examination undermined the eyewitness testimony and at the close of the Crown’s case, a motion for directed verdict was brought by Christopher Assie. The motion was successful and there was a directed verdict of not guilty on second degree murder and the lesser and included offence of manslaughter. Eyewitness evidence is inherently problematic and there must be careful scrutiny of such evidence to avoid wrong convictions. Fortunately, A.S. was found not guilty.
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.
C.K. was a youth charged with Dangerous Driving out of the Newmarket courthouse. C.K. had no driver’s license. However, he borrowed his uncle’s vehicle and met with his friend at a parking lot of a community centre. While exiting the parking lot, C.K.’s vehicle collided with his friend’s vehicle and the two crashed into a bystanders’ vehicles. One bystander sustained minor injuries. Police attended and he was charged. C.K. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure carefully and then conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. However, no desirable resolution was reached, and a trial was scheduled. Mariya took the position that based upon the statements provided and eyewitness evidence, it would be difficult for the Crown to establish Dangerous Driving. After having set the trial date down and preparing for trial, the Crown Attorney reached out to Mariya and asked to resume resolution discussions. Mariya was able to negotiate an outcome where the client pled guilty to a highway traffic offence of careless driving and a criminal offence of dangerous driving was withdrawn.
P.L. was charged with impaired operation and over 80, as well as possession of a scheduled substance, Newmarket courthouse. P.L. was driving in York Region when he was pulled over for speeding. The police officer observed beer cans inside the vehicle as well as an open beer can near the driver. After failing an ASD test, P.L. was taken to the police station. P.L. provided a breath sample that was over 80 milliliters of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. P.L. was searched and narcotic tablets were found on him in small amounts without a prescription. P.L. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya reviewed disclosure and found that police officers did not properly administer ASD device. In addition, Mariya requested P.L.’s medical history and was able to negotiate with the prosecutor that even though the drugs were not prescribed, P.L. was in medical need of the medication. P.L. entered a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and all criminal charges against him were withdrawn.
Charge of Public Mischief withdrawn prior to setting a trial date, Newmarket court. The client is a new immigrant to Canada from China. A friend advised him that he could earn money by signing a document as a co-signer for other people and guaranteed him there was no liability. J.M. naively signed the document without reading it. Several months later, the bank sent him a letter asking him for payment pursuant to the letter signed that guaranteed a loan. The scheme was a fraud of course and J.M. was unwittingly caught up in the scheme. The bank called police and J.M. was charged with public mischief. J.M. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend the charge. Mariya and Daisy obtained detailed background information on J.M. and conducted a meeting with the Crown to explain the role of his friend and the gullibility of the client. Given his recent arrival in Canada, the small amount of the fraud, and that J.M. clearly was a dupe, the Crown withdrew the charge.
The client had plead guilty to one count of Luring with another law firm in 2013. P.M. entered into a Section 161 Prohibition Order that prohibited him from attending a number of public places and from any contact with children. The duration of the Order was 10 years. P.M. was to have a child with his wife. P.M. retained Mariya Protsenko to vary the Prohibition Order to allow him to be with his child and to take his child to public places. Mariya drafted the Application and the client’s Affidavit. There were a number of challenges faced as P.M.’s charge pre-dated electronic system and the Judge who signed the original Order left the jurisdiction. However, Mariya was relentless and accomplished getting a hearing date for the client before the arrival of the child. After numerous corresponding e-mails with the Crown Attorney and a court appearance, Section 161 Prohibition Order was successfully varied.
Charge of Mischief Under withdrawn prior to trial, Toronto. The client was charged with Mischief Under in relation to a road rage incident. Grace Condello of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. The complainant alleged that the client attempted to change lanes and that he had to drive to the left to avoid a collision. The complainant alleged the client got out of his vehicle and “began to hit the trunk area with his fists” causing damages in the amount of $4,500.00. Ms. Condello was able to establish that it was the complainant who initiated the incident and had thrown a water bottle at the client’s vehicle first causing damage of $900.00. In light of the evidence, the Crown agreed to a common law Peace Bond and withdrew the charge of Mischief Under.
Charges of Break and Enter with intent to commit an indicatable offence withdrawn, Toronto. M.A. was charged with Break and Enter with Intent out of North York courthouse. She had a fight with her boyfriend and the boyfriend disconnected her business phone line. M.A. was very upset and came to her boyfriend’s house to ask for the phone line to be connected again as her business was suffering. The boyfriend didn’t let M.A. inside the house. M.A. broke the door and entered the house. Then she confronted her boyfriend and tried to have him connect the phone line. The argument escalated and M.A. called 911. Police arrived and spoke to the boyfriend. Upon finding out that it was his house and that M.A. broke the door to enter it, they arrested M.A. M.A. retained Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, Criminal Lawyers Toronto. Mariya had the client put together a history for her to review and then based on the disclosure and the client’s information, Mariya put together a package for the Crown Attorney, including the background of the relationship, information on the client’s business and personal information of the client for a reasonable prospect of conviction assessment. After two pre-trials with the Crown Attorney, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Possession Loaded Restricted Firearm without Licence (x2), Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Possession of Cannabis for Distribution, Possession of Controlled Substance for Trafficking withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Newmarket. H.S. was accused of being part of a gang which had committed a string of violent late night home invasions involving firearms and serious assaults on the occupants. The police investigation led to an address where the suspects lived. Following the execution of a search warrant, police found numerous weapons, drugs, body armour and proceeds of crime in the living room. The occupants were all arrested. H.S retained Michael Bury of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. H.S. had nothing to do with the alleged crimes as he was only a tenant at the address where he rented a room. Extensive pre-trials were conducted with the Crown to demonstrate that H.S. had no involvement and that the Crown’s own evidence confirmed this due to a lack of fingerprints or any other evidence connecting H.S. to the gang. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges after the client provided a statutory declaration prepared by Michael Bury.
The accused along with her entire family were arrested for possession of numerous gun and drug charges in her home in Brampton. Mr. John Navarrete reviewed the voluminous disclosure and conducted several Judicial Pretrials with other co-counsel. Mr. Navarrete was able to show the Federal Crown’s office in Brampton that the Crown could never prove that KC had any knowledge of any drugs or guns and was not associated to any other co-accused outside of her family. Upon providing a statutory declaration, the Federal Crown stayed the charges against KC.
