Alan Gold

The defendants, having been found guilty of two counts of fraud over $5,000 in relation to a public hospital procurement process, applied to re-open their trial prior to sentencing.

They argued that the Crown failed to provide notice of the alleged deprivation, failed to prove causation, and that the court erred in its factual and legal findings regarding intangible deprivation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants were fully aware of the case to meet, the factual findings were supported by circumstantial evidence, and intangible losses such as risk to market integrity constitute valid deprivation in fraud.

The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify the extraordinary step of re-opening the trial, and any alleged errors should be pursued at the Court of Appeal.

The defendants, two highly paid executives, were convicted of fraud arising from the public procurement process for a $300 million renovation to St. Michael's Hospital.

They engaged in secret communications and concealed conflicts of interest, causing significant financial and reputational harm to the hospital, other bidders, and the public procurement system.

The court found the fraud exceeded $1 million, triggering a mandatory minimum sentence.

Aquino, who orchestrated the scheme and destroyed evidence, was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

Georgiou, who breached his position of trust but may have misguidedly believed his actions benefited the hospital, was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with having excess blood alcohol within two hours of operating a conveyance.

At trial, the accused sought to exclude the breath samples, arguing they were not taken 'as soon as practicable' and alleging multiple violations of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court held there is no Charter requirement for breath samples to be taken as soon as practicable under the current legislative scheme.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach due to an unexplained 11-to-12-minute delay at the roadside before transporting the accused to the detachment.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the breath samples under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty.