COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000613

DOCKET: C32493

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and NICHOLAS
PAPAIOANNOU (Appellant)

BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., GOUDGE AND BORINS JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Dragi Zekavica
For the appellant

Thomas Galligan
For the respondent Crown

HEARD: June 7, 2000

On appeal from the conviction by Pickett J. dated April 27, 1999
and on appeal from the sentence imposed by Pickett J. dated June
29, 1999.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant argues that issuing and serving civil court
proceedings cannot constitute a breach of his probation order.
Considering the substance of the statement of the claim and the
background that preceded the issuance of it, we disagree. The
proceedings in this case clearly constitute a communication with
the complainants, were intended as such, and were intended to
further harass them. The claim in question on its face is a
frivolous and vexatious proceeding. Any protection to civil
proceedings that may be offered by the Charter does not extend to
a claim drafted in this way. The trial judge properly found the
breach of the probation order.

[2] Secondly, the appellant argues that the re-laying of the
charge here constitutes an abuse of process. No authority is
offered in support. In our view, the re-laying of the charge in
the circumstances of the simple mistake as was done here was
entirely appropriate. See R. v. McArthur (1995), 102 C.C.C. (3d)
84 (Sask. C.A.).

[3] We would therefore dismiss the conviction appeal.

[4] As to sentence we see no error and would grant leave, but
dismiss the appeal.

“R. McMurtry C.J.O."

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“S. Borins J.A.”