James Stribopoulos

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the 41-month and 19-day delay between his arrest and the jury's verdicts violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay and deducted periods of defence delay, including time before the scheduling of the preliminary inquiry and time resulting from an abandoned Garofoli application.

The court also found that exceptional circumstances, specifically a lack of judicial resources due to illness and a family death, justified a further 7.5-month deduction.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a candidate in a federal election, sought an injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from enforcing its election sign by-law against him and from organizing candidates' debates without his participation.

The applicant argued that city staff were unlawfully removing his compliant signs.

The court dismissed the application, finding that exempting the applicant from the by-law would be untenable and unfair to other candidates, and that the prospect of the city organizing an exclusionary debate was highly speculative.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, who had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' home unconditionally, failed to close the transaction, alleging they were induced by a misrepresentation regarding the lot size.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding there was no misrepresentation and that the defendants simply regretted their purchase after a downturn in the real estate market.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for damages representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The applicant, an airport worker charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained through wiretap authorizations and search warrants.

The applicant argued that the affidavits supporting the authorizations and warrants lacked reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity.

The court reviewed the authorizations and warrants, applying the Garofoli standard and amplifying the record where necessary.

The court found that the authorizations and warrants were validly issued and supported by sufficient grounds, including intercepted communications, surveillance, and informant information.

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied for the production of third-party records from a school board and a children's aid society relating to two complainants.

Having previously found the records likely relevant, the court proceeded to the second stage of the O'Connor application to determine whether production should be ordered.

Applying the principles from McNeil, the court balanced the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainants' privacy interests.

The court ordered the production of the records, subject to redactions for plainly irrelevant and highly sensitive personal information.

The accused, charged with historical domestic violence offences, brought an application under the common law O'Connor framework for the production of third-party records relating to two complainants.

The records were held by a school board and a children's aid society.

The court found that the accused met the first-stage threshold of demonstrating that the records were likely to be relevant to the complainants' credibility, given the unfolding of the allegations and the potential influence of a school social worker.

The court ordered the records produced for judicial inspection.

The plaintiff, Unique Lighting & Control Corp., sued Green Services Canada Ltd. and its officers, John Green and Patricia Green, for unpaid lighting supplies.

The individual defendants (John and Patricia Green) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, arguing no basis for personal liability.

Unique Lighting, the responding party, also sought summary judgment against Green Services and John Green.

The court dismissed the claims against John Green and Patricia Green, finding no grounds to pierce the corporate veil, establish a breach of trust, or prove unjust enrichment.

However, summary judgment was granted in favour of Unique Lighting against Green Services for the outstanding debt of $51,239.00, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed results.

The applicant brought a motion for habeas corpus, alleging that the adjournment of her bail hearing to a later date violated her s. 11(e) Charter right to reasonable bail without just cause.

The Crown opposed, citing issues with conducting contested bail hearings in video remand court.

The court found that insufficient regard was paid to accommodating the applicant's request to proceed with a bail hearing on the day of the motion, and that her continued detention was not justified.

Exercising its inherent supervisory jurisdiction under the Charter, the court ordered the applicant's release on her own recognizance with conditions, finding that to do otherwise would breach her s. 9 and 11(e) Charter rights.

A mother (plaintiff) and daughter (defendant) were co-owners of two residential properties.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of sole ownership or a reduced interest for the defendant in one property, alleging unjust enrichment due to disproportionate contributions.

The defendant denied this, asserting joint ownership and an agreement for equitable expense division across both properties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding her account less credible and that she failed to establish the preconditions for unjust enrichment, as the division of expenses was based on an agreement and both parties benefited equally from property appreciation.

The defendants, Krylov & Company and Devry Smith Frank LLP, successfully obtained summary judgment against the plaintiff, Zaka Ullah Khan, who had alleged fraud and conspiracy.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion and the action.

The court declined to award costs to Krylov & Company, finding their failure to provide the plaintiff with requested documents was instrumental in precipitating the unnecessary action, and instead ordered them to pay the plaintiff's disbursements.

Devry Smith Frank LLP, having no responsibility for the action's commencement, was awarded partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun discovered during a traffic stop.

The police officer claimed the stop was for driving without headlights, but the court rejected this evidence, finding the officer conducted an unlawful investigative detention based on a mere hunch.

The court found violations of the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the handgun and the officer's testimony under s. 24(2), emphasizing the deliberate nature of the police misconduct and the need to dissociate the justice system from such Charter infringements.

The plaintiff, Zaka Ullah Khan, initiated an action against two law firms, Krylov & Company and Devry Smith Frank LLP, alleging fraud and conspiracy regarding the settlement of his personal injury tort action.

The plaintiff claimed the actual settlement amount was higher than what he received and that the defendants misappropriated funds.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing an absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's claims.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff's allegations were based on unsubstantiated beliefs and lacked evidentiary foundation.

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 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.