James Stribopoulos

Criminal trial concerning child pornography located on the accused's computer following a peer-to-peer file-sharing investigation.

The Crown proved possession and access offences through forensic evidence and the accused's admissions, but the only live issue was whether the accused subjectively knew he was making files available to others through file-sharing software.

Applying the mens rea analysis from Spencer and the credibility framework in W.(D.), the court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended, knew, or was wilfully blind to sharing child pornography.

Convictions were entered on possession and access, and an acquittal was entered on making available.

The Crown brought an application to admit the notes, diagrams, and Exhibit List prepared by a deceased police officer under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The officer had served as the Exhibit Officer during the execution of a search warrant in a child exploitation investigation.

The court found that necessity was established due to the officer's death and that threshold reliability was met given the administrative nature of the task, the officer's conscientious work habits, and the corroborative checks performed by other officers.

The application was granted and the evidence was ruled admissible.

During a trial, the Crown brought an application to admit into evidence an Agreed Statement of Facts that the accused had signed and filed in support of earlier guilty pleas which were subsequently struck.

The court dismissed the application, applying the reasoning from R. v. B.(D.M.), holding that the Agreed Statement of Facts was inextricably linked to the struck guilty pleas and fairness required it to be brought under the same protective umbrella.

The offender pleaded guilty to three offences: criminal harassment, uttering a death threat, and distributing an intimate image without consent.

The offences arose from a pattern of conduct following the offender's separation from his wife and discovery of her infidelity.

The offender engaged in a prolonged course of harassment involving unwanted communications, surveillance equipment, GPS tracking, hidden cameras, and threats directed at both his estranged wife and her new partner.

The offender also created fake advertisements on a sex trade website using intimate images of his wife without consent.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight months imprisonment, with specific terms for each count, followed by three years of probation with strict conditions including no-contact orders and counselling requirements.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample in response to an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a routine vehicle stop for suspected impaired driving, the defendant made four attempts to provide a breath sample but appeared to make no genuine effort to blow into the device.

After being warned of the consequences, the defendant expressly refused to provide a sample.

The court found the defendant guilty, accepting the officer's evidence over the defendant's testimony that he had made genuine efforts but was physically unable to comply due to being handcuffed.

The court also found that the defendant had been unlawfully handcuffed during the breath testing process, violating section 9 of the Charter, but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) as the seriousness of the breach was attenuated by the officer's junior status and imperfect legal knowledge at the time.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, the police officer testified to seeing the appellant holding a cell phone, while the appellant testified he was holding the gearshift of his manual transmission vehicle.

The trial justice convicted the appellant after simply stating she accepted the officer's evidence.

The appeal court found the trial justice erred in law by failing to apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample in response to a lawful approved screening device demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a motor vehicle accident on January 17, 2017, the accused claimed he was unable to provide a breath sample due to debilitating sciatica pain.

The Crown argued the mens rea for the offence was mere knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act.

The court adopted the more demanding test from R. v. Stanley, requiring the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure was deliberate and intentional.

The court found credibility issues with the accused's testimony but determined that, considering all evidence, a reasonable doubt existed as to whether the failure was deliberate or due to inability caused by pain.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was tried on two counts: assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from incidents on February 23, 2017, involving a 21-month-old toddler in the accused's home daycare.

The Crown alleged the accused repeatedly dropped the child onto a carpeted floor in a hallway and assaulted the child in a stairwell by yanking her arm and slapping her face.

The accused claimed the injuries resulted from accidental falls and normal childcare activities.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on video surveillance evidence of the stairwell assault and credible eyewitness testimony regarding the hallway incidents.

The offender pled guilty to making sexually explicit material available to a person he believed to be under sixteen years old, contrary to section 171.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He also acknowledged responsibility for child luring and possession of child pornography.

The offender engaged in online communications with an undercover police officer posing as two adolescent girls over a two-week period, during which he sent explicit images and attempted to arrange a meeting.

The court imposed a sentence of twelve months imprisonment followed by three years probation, along with a section 161 prohibition order restricting internet use and contact with minors.

The court also addressed the availability of section 161 orders in cases involving undercover police operations.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender was arrested on September 1, 2017, while on parole for a prior drug and firearm offence.

Police surveillance revealed the offender engaged in drug trafficking activity, resulting in the seizure of 13.95 grams of cocaine and $2,435 in cash.

The offender has an extensive criminal record involving multiple drug trafficking convictions and firearm offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 261 days imprisonment after crediting 189 days of pre-trial detention.

The court declined to credit time spent serving the prior sentence between arrest and warrant expiry.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime firearm prohibition, forfeiture of offence-related property, and a victim fine surcharge.

The offender pleaded guilty to communicating by computer with a person he believed to be under 16 years of age for the purpose of facilitating sexual touching, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-week period, the offender engaged in sexually explicit communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, including requesting intimate images and sending explicit videos.

The offender arranged an in-person meeting and travelled to the meeting location with items the purported victim had requested.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by three years probation, along with mandatory DNA and SOIRA orders and a 20-year s. 161 prohibition on computer and internet use for communicating with minors.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of violating section 122(1)(c) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The first violation involved entering into a joint venture agreement that qualified as an investment contract and security without being registered to trade in securities.

The second violation involved breaching a Cease Trade Order by entering into promissory note agreements while prohibited from trading in securities.

The accused, a former police officer, had promoted U.S. real estate properties to Canadian investors, making representations about turn-key investments and property management.

Many properties were in poor condition and promises were not fulfilled.

The court imposed fines, probation, community service, and restitution orders rather than a custodial sentence, finding the conduct closer to carelessness than deliberate fraud.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged that on October 14, 2015, the accused operated a vehicle while impaired.

The court examined whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, whether any Charter violations occurred, whether the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the arresting officer had proper grounds based on poor driving, slurred speech, odour of alcohol, and bloodshot eyes.

The court admitted the breath sample evidence and found the approved instrument was functioning properly.

The accused was found guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol after being pulled over on Highway 410 early in the morning.

The Crown admitted its case on the merits, and the sole issue at trial was whether the accused's right to counsel of choice had been breached.

The court found that police failed to fully inform the accused of her right to counsel and failed to facilitate her access to counsel of choice.

Instead, police funneled the accused toward duty counsel through a binary choice presentation, despite her clear indication that she wished to contact her boyfriend to obtain private counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The offender pled guilty to seven counts of counselling misrepresentation contrary to section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Over a five-year period, the offender, an unlicensed immigration consultant, exploited vulnerable would-be immigrants seeking entry through the Live-In Caregiver Program by providing false employment contracts and Labour Market Opinions, charging substantial fees while delivering no legitimate services.

The offender threatened victims who complained.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (11 months after pre-trial custody credit), three years probation with conditions including a prohibition on providing immigration advice, no contact orders with victims, and restitution orders totalling $23,500.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on the presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c), which requires that breath samples be taken "as soon as practicable" after the alleged offence.

The central issue was whether the 57-minute delay between the traffic stop and the first breath sample was reasonable.

The court found that the Crown discharged its burden by establishing that the police acted reasonably throughout the chain of events, including the time spent on booking procedures, facilitating contact with duty counsel, and preparing the approved instrument.

The defendant was found guilty.

A youth offender pled guilty to three offences under the Criminal Code: procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services, receiving financial benefit from the sale of sexual services, and advertising the sale of sexual services.

The offender, aged 17 at the time of the offences, recruited two underage girls (ages 15 and 16) into prostitution over a two-day period in July 2015, acting as their pimp and collecting the proceeds.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months (credited as time served due to restrictive bail conditions) followed by two years probation with strict conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at the accused's residence and seized a hard drive containing 41,888 still images and 630 video files of child pornography, obtained over a four-month period from March to July 2014.

The materials consisted primarily of pubescent and early adolescent children in sexually provocative poses, with very few depictions of explicit sexual activity.

The accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated with police, and underwent psychiatric assessment and therapy.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought eight months.

The court imposed eight months imprisonment, finding that while the size of the collection was aggravating, the nature of the materials was less depraved than in comparable cases, and significant mitigating factors were present.

A youth criminal justice trial involving allegations of sexual assault and incest against a young person.

The complainant alleged multiple incidents of sexual abuse by her older half-brother occurring over several years during her childhood.

The central issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was at least twelve years old (the age of criminal responsibility in Canada) when the alleged offences occurred.

The court found reasonable doubt on the timing issue and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a nine-year-old child on Christmas Day, 2013.

While in the living room of the victim's home, the offender grabbed the child's buttocks twice.

The victim was profoundly traumatized by the incident.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted to a sentence of 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently.

The court accepted the joint submission as proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility, and as appropriately calibrated to address sentencing objectives including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.