Eric N. Libman

The Crown sought to adduce similar act evidence based on video surveillance footage showing the defendant standing in close proximity to two unknown women in a grocery store, allegedly engaging in conduct similar to the charged sexual assault of the complainant.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a woman at a checkout counter by touching her buttocks three times in a deliberate manner.

The Crown argued that two other incidents captured on video—one occurring minutes before and one after the alleged assault—demonstrated a pattern of similar groping conduct.

The defence opposed admission, arguing the evidence was insufficiently similar and that the video footage was ambiguous and incapable of proving the alleged similar acts.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that neither incident shown on video demonstrated striking similarity to the charged conduct and that the evidence was not capable of proving the alleged similar acts to the requisite degree of certainty.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision imposing a $10,000 fine on a defendant convicted of dealing in mortgages without a licence under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The defendant, a former licensed mortgage broker whose licence had been revoked, continued to conduct mortgage brokering activities through a separate company while unlicensed, generating $48,967.20 in commissions over 14 transactions.

The Crown sought a fine of $100,000 at trial and $75,000 on appeal, arguing the sentence failed to give appropriate weight to general deterrence.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered deterrence and other relevant sentencing principles, and that the $10,000 fine was fit and appropriate given the circumstances of the offender and the nature of the strict liability offence.

The court ruled on the status of Paul Hatzitrifonos, a non-lawyer and non-paralegal practitioner, to argue provincial offences trials and appeals as an agent for counsel Altaf Khan.

The court determined that permitting such representation is contrary to the proper administration of justice and impedes access to justice.

The court found that Hatzitrifonos, lacking formal legal training, licensing, and professional regulation, cannot provide competent legal services or be properly supervised by counsel.

The court emphasized that representatives in provincial offences proceedings must be authorized under the Law Society Act and subject to professional standards and continuing education requirements.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against Roberto Camara following his conviction for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The victim, a 72-year-old man, was struck in the face with a pool cue at a sports bar, resulting in permanent blindness in one eye and permanent facial disfigurement.

The court found that Camara met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under both s.753(1)(a)(i) and s.753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and substantial indifference to the consequences.

The court rejected the alternative long-term offender designation, finding no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

Camara was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence.