James Stribopoulos

The accused, charged with terrorism offences for allegedly attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, appeared for a mandatory detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a bail hearing 'from the ground up'.

The court found that the Crown's case was not overwhelmingly strong, as there was no direct evidence the accused intended to enhance the terrorist group's ability to carry out terrorist activities, nor any history of violence.

The court concluded that the accused's detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, and ordered her release on a $100,000 surety bail with strict conditions, including a ban on social media and internet monitoring.

The United States sought the extradition of Festus Akpobome (also known as Ejiro Efevwerha and Andrew Ejiro Efevwerha) to face fraud charges.

The primary issues were whether the requesting state established the identity of the respondent as the person sought and whether the requesting state's conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the evidence, including witness identification, photographic comparison, and email analysis, sufficiently established identity on a balance of probabilities.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding no "blatant unfairness" or serious misconduct by the requesting state.

Consequently, an order was issued committing the respondent to custody for extradition.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a serious intersection collision.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d).

The court found that police violated his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by psychologically detaining him at the scene without providing rights to counsel, and violated his s. 8 rights by seizing his vehicle's airbag control module without a warrant and failing to file a report to a justice.

The court excluded the module data under s. 24(2).

However, relying on dashcam video from another vehicle, the court found the accused's driving—accelerating to nearly 50 km/h over the speed limit and passing a stopped vehicle in an intersection—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and was a significant contributing cause of the collision.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Cindy Cordi and Carlo Cordi separated after over three decades of marriage.

Cindy sought divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and damages for alleged abusive behavior.

She also claimed a beneficial interest in a farmhouse owned by Carlo's father, Vincenzo Cordi, or, alternatively, unjust enrichment for contributions made to it.

The court granted divorce, awarded Cindy spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range ($3,078 per month indefinitely), and an equalization payment of $5,690.07.

The court imputed income to both parties for support calculations, finding Carlo received undeclared cash and Cindy was intentionally underemployed.

Cindy's claims for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and her claims for a trust or unjust enrichment regarding the farmhouse, were dismissed.

The defendant, Rock Con Forming Ltd., moved to set aside a noting in default, a default judgment, and a notice of garnishment, and sought leave to file a statement of defence and crossclaim.

The action arose from a construction project where Quadform Ltd. claimed non-payment for services.

Rock Con argued it was never properly served with the statement of claim and had a meritorious 'pay when paid' defence.

The court found that while Rock Con likely had notice of the action, Quadform failed in its duty of full and fair disclosure by not checking Canada Post tracking history for registered mail service when seeking default judgment ex parte.

Given Quadform had already received payment from a co-defendant, the court granted Rock Con's motion, setting aside the default judgment and garnishment, and allowing it to file a defence, but made no order as to costs due to both parties' conduct.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding, Ejiro Efevwerha (a.k.a.

Festus Akpobome), brought a second application for disclosure from Canadian authorities.

He sought information on how American law enforcement obtained his Ontario driver's license photo and accessed his email account, arguing potential s. 8 Charter violations and challenging the quality of identification evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, opposed the application, asserting that an extradition hearing is not a criminal trial and the Revised Record of the Case no longer relied on Canadian-gathered evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no 'air of reality' to the Charter claims as the Charter does not apply to foreign law enforcement actions outside Canada, and the requesting state had removed Canadian-gathered evidence from its record.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff insurer established that two defendants participated in a scheme to defraud it, the court determined the costs of the action and motion.

The court found that the defendants' deliberate and reprehensible fraudulent conduct, which precipitated the litigation, justified an award of elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $49,232.53.

The accused, charged with sexual services offences including procuring, sought to cross-examine the complainant about her prior and subsequent involvement in the sex trade.

The Crown objected, arguing the accused must comply with the procedures in s. 276 of the Criminal Code or analogous common law rules established in Seaboyer.

The court declined to follow a recent coordinate decision that extended Seaboyer to sexual services offences, holding that such an extension would exceed the bounds of incremental common law change and circumvent Parliament's deliberate choice not to include these offences in s. 276.

The court concluded that existing rules of evidence are sufficient to protect the trial process from irrelevant and prejudicial evidence.

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for fraud and conspiracy arising from a staged motor vehicle accident claim.

The uncontradicted evidence established that two of the defendants orchestrated a scheme to falsely report the driver's identity and submit fraudulent accident benefits and tort claims.

The court granted summary judgment against those two defendants for the amounts paid out by the insurer, but dismissed the motion against the son, finding insufficient evidence of his participation in the fraud.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the compensatory damages and prior costs orders sufficient for deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and failed to object to inadmissible bad character evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the Crown had improperly elicited highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including allegations of violence, misogyny, and homophobia, without seeking a ruling on its admissibility.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding that credibility was the central issue at trial and it was not apparent that the trial judge had disregarded the inadmissible evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with possessing crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and a loaded restricted firearm.

The court found a material change in circumstances because disclosure revealed the Crown's case was significantly weaker than presented in the initial police synopsis, and the applicant proposed a more stringent release plan including GPS monitoring.

The court concluded that detention was not justified on either the secondary or tertiary grounds and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions with three sureties.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against a child, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether a letter written by the complainant and retrieved from the trash by her mother constituted a 'record' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The letter was provided to the police and subsequently given to the defence as part of Crown disclosure.

The court held that the admissibility regime under s. 278.92 only applies to records in the accused's possession or control obtained outside of Crown disclosure or a successful Mills application.

Consequently, the letter did not qualify as a 'record' under this regime, and its admissibility would be governed by common law rules of evidence.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application seeking disclosure of information provided to police by a confidential informer, arguing the informer was a material witness and the information was necessary to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court held that the 'innocence at stake' test is the sole exception to informer privilege, even for material witnesses.

While the applicant established that the privileged information was not available from any other source, the court found the application premature.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, ruling that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine if the applicant could raise a reasonable doubt without the privileged information after the Crown's key witness was cross-examined.

The accused was charged with assault, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm.

The Crown brought an application for directions on whether the common law regime from Seaboyer or s. 276 of the Criminal Code applied to evidence it sought to adduce regarding a co-assailant's statement that the complainant had previously 'raped' the accused.

The court held that s. 276 only applies to evidence adduced by the accused.

Assuming the Seaboyer regime applied, the court ruled the evidence was admissible as it was highly probative of motive and did not invite prohibited twin-myths reasoning.

The plaintiff was struck by an unidentified driver while riding her electric scooter in a parking lot.

The driver fled the scene shortly after the collision while the plaintiff was being attended to by her husband and a friend.

The plaintiff sued her husband's automobile insurer under the unidentified automobile coverage.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to identify the driver.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a triable issue as to whether the plaintiff's failure to obtain the driver's information was reasonable given her injuries and shock immediately following the accident.

This decision concerns a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code for an accused facing multiple firearms-related charges, including unauthorized possession, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession with serial number removed, possessing in contravention of a prohibition order, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The accused had been in pre-trial custody for 18 months.

The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, with the onus on the accused to show cause why detention was not justified.

The court assessed the secondary ground (public safety) and tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), considering the accused's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the strength of the Crown's circumstantial case, and the proposed surety's release plan.

The court found the accused failed to demonstrate that detention was unjustified on either ground, concluding that the release plan was inadequate and that release would undermine public confidence, despite the pre-trial custody duration not yet exceeding a likely sentence.

The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.

At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.

The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.

However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, citing two material changes in circumstances: a more stringent release plan including GPS monitoring and a higher surety pledge, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown conceded the pandemic constituted a material change.

The court found that the applicant's detention was not necessary on either the secondary or tertiary grounds, considering the lack of a criminal record, the enhanced bail plan, and the risks posed by the pandemic in a detention centre.

The court ordered the applicant's release on a $50,000 recognizance with three sureties and strict conditions, including GPS ankle monitoring and a residence requirement.

The applicant, Adrian Williams, sought bail after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, with expert medical evidence presented regarding the risks of the virus in correctional facilities.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the applicant's criminal record, the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the public health implications of the pandemic.

Despite the public health concerns, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given his history of breaching court orders and the extreme violence of the alleged crimes.

Bail was denied.

Muhammad Asif was found guilty by a jury of ten offences, including possession of property obtained by crime, three counts of robbery, robbery using a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, and four counts of wearing a disguise.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The offences involved a stolen SUV, a technology store robbery, two gas station robberies, and an RBC bank robbery where a loaded sawed-off shotgun accidentally discharged.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, planned nature of crimes, use of weapons, and commission while serving an intermittent sentence.

Mitigating factors included relative youth and eventual acknowledgment of responsibility.

The Crown sought 12 years, defence sought 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of nine years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.