Demetrius Antonios Kappos

The appellants were charged with unlawfully damaging and/or destroying protected rattlesnake habitat contrary to the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay, which was dismissed by the trial judge.

The appellants then sought certiorari and s. 24(1) Charter relief in Superior Court, arguing the trial judge failed to characterize certain disclosure as "obviously relevant" and failed to attribute all delay to the Crown.

The Superior Court dismissed both applications.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no jurisdictional error and rejecting the argument that the degree of relevance of outstanding disclosure alleviates the defence's obligation to act diligently.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Joris Salverda guilty of operating a milk plant without a licence contrary to s. 15(1) of the Milk Act and breaching a probation order under s. 75 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Defendant challenged the applicability of the Milk Act to his private raw milk operation via a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that the Act did not apply to his private dealings with customers who assumed risks.

The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, relying heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R v. Schmidt, which held that the Milk Act applies to private operations and that there is no constitutional right to sell unpasteurized milk products.

The Court found no violation of s. 7 Charter rights and confirmed the Defendant's guilt on both charges.

The defendant, Christopher Rocke, brought a motion for recusal of Justice of the Peace L. Crawford, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations stemmed from an interaction with the Crown at the outset of the trial, the judge's management of court procedure, perceived inexperience, and an alleged institutional bias due to the judge's former profession and government employment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to provide evidence to support a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the application was not timely.

The judge affirmed the court's authority to control proceedings and manage trials efficiently.

The appellants appealed their convictions for offences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fishing Licensing Regulation, specifically concerning the interpretation of an exemption related to buying baitfish for commercial purposes without a license.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the exemption in s. 32(1) of the Regulation applies only to the general prohibition in s. 51(1) of the FWCA, not to the specific commercial baitfish prohibition in s. 31.3(1)(b) of the Regulation.

The court also rejected a due diligence/mistake of fact defence, reiterating that misinterpretation of law is not a valid defence.

The defendants brought an application for disclosure of information related to four other land development projects, arguing it was relevant for full answer and defence, due diligence, and to demonstrate inconsistent application of environmental legislation by the Ministry.

The court determined that the materials sought were not first-party disclosure in the possession or control of the prosecution but rather third-party records held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The court outlined the proper two-step process for a third-party production application, emphasizing the need to notify the record holder and any parties with privacy interests, and provided guidance on the Crown's duty to inquire.

The application for disclosure was not granted as first-party, but the court provided a procedural path for the defendants to pursue it as third-party production.

The defendant, George Valtoudis, was charged with obstructing an inspector from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), a strict liability offence under the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001.

The court found that the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant raised the affirmative defences of due diligence and reasonable mistake of fact, claiming he did not know the person was an OMAFRA inspector.

The court rejected these defences, finding that the defendant knew or ought to have known the inspector's identity and was not duly diligent.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for possession of live invasive fish contrary to the Fisheries Act and Ontario Fishery Regulations.

On January 25, 2012, and February 28, 2012, tractor-trailers carrying fish shipments from Northeast Arkansas Fish Farms were referred for secondary inspection at the Ambassador Bridge.

Ministry of Natural Resources officers determined that the shipments contained live grass carp and bighead carp, respectively, which are classified as invasive species.

The defendants had no licence to possess live invasive fish.

The driver, Yong-Sheng Zhang, was present during inspections where live fish were observed in water samples.

The corporate defendant, Alltheway Trucking Inc., was responsible for transporting the shipments.

The court found both defendants guilty on both counts, rejecting defences of due diligence and honest mistaken belief.