Efstathios Christos Stephen Balopoulos

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Noah Dunnett’s conviction and sentence appeals for two counts of child luring, and allowed the Crown’s cross-appeal only to increase the SOIRA order from 10 to 20 years.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s handling of s. 11(b) Charter delay, the Garofoli application, or the sentence imposed.

The court emphasized the seriousness of child luring offences and the deference owed to trial judges on sentencing, especially where mitigating factors exist.

The SOIRA order was corrected to comply with statutory minimums.

The appellant, A.S., appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife, alleging the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by misapprehending J.R.'s testimony regarding leg bruises, which was central to the conviction's corroboration finding.

Furthermore, the trial judge improperly relied on a prior consistent statement as corroboration.

This misapprehension of evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of child pornography offences and offences associated with sexual touching of his daughter.

Three series of photographs depicting the victim were found on the Internet.

The appellant admitted to taking innocent photographs but denied taking the pornographic ones and denied distributing any photographs.

He suggested the victim's mother and her new boyfriend had opportunity to commit the offences.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and found the circumstances consistent with the appellant's guilt with no reasonable alternative inferences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction freezing the assets of its former employee, who was alleged to have participated in a kickback scheme in Cuba resulting in over $500,000 in misappropriated funds.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing material non-disclosure and lack of risk of asset dissipation.

The court applied the five-part test for a Mareva injunction and found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and sufficient risk of dissipation, ordering the injunction to continue.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's refusal to award augmented costs under s. 258.6(2) of the Insurance Act following a successful motor vehicle accident claim.

The trial judge had concluded the provision did not apply because the respondent municipality was not an insurer.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that the municipality's legal department was acting on behalf of its insurer, who had received notice of the claim and failed to respond to repeated requests to mediate.

The appeal was allowed, and the trial costs award was increased by $20,000 to reflect the insurer's failure to mediate.