Reasons for Ruling
DATE: June 9, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF
the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.33
and
an application under s. 51 for the issuance of a summons
to compel the in-person attendance or appearance of the
defendants who are represented by the respondents
Between
City of the Corporation of Brampton
Prosecutor/applicant
and
Adelin-Bogdan MOCANU,
Adelin B. MOCANU & Associates,
Sachin MOUDGIL,
Traffic Justice,
and
Ticket Justice
respondents
Ontario Court of Justice
Brampton, Ontario
Quon J. P.
Application Background
Application argued on April 25, 2025 where an order had been granted and issued under s. 51 of the Provincial Offences Act and then that order was reconsidered and changed on May 12, 2025. Written ruling for the reasons for granting the April 25, 2025 order and for the reconsideration of that order on May 12, 2025 was released on June 9, 2025.
Counsel:
J. De Falco, prosecutor (applicant)
S. Moudgil and A. Mocanu, respondents
Cases Considered or Referred To
- Alessandro v. Briggs, 2024 ONSC 4636, [2024] O.J. No. 3720, per Parghi J.
- Florsham v. Mason, 2015 ONSC 3147, [2015] O.J. No. 2483, per Corbett J.
- Fortin v. R., 2012 QCCA 883, [2012] J.Q. no 4432
- La Française IC 2 v. Wires, 2024 ONCA 171, [2024] O.J. No. 1085, per van Rensburg, Roberts and Gomery JJ.A.
- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Alessandro, 2009 ONLSHP 91, [2009] L.S.D.D. No. 118
- Nagy v. University of Ottawa, 2022 ONSC 3399, [2022] O.J. No. 2643, per Ellies R.S.J., Swinton and Ramsay JJ.
- Nicolino Alessandro v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 40, [2009] L.S.D.D. No. 59
- R. v. Elguindy, 1993 O.J. No. 2869 (Ont. C.J. (Gen. Div.)), per Chapnik J.
- R. v. Gardner, 2015 ABPC 5, [2014] A.J. No. 1508
- R. v. Gardner, 2015 ABPC 8, [2014] A.J. No. 1509
- R. v. Gill, 2019 BCSC 461, [2019] B.C.J. No. 617
- R. v. Gourlie, 2018 O.J. No. 7363 (Ont. C.J.), per Schwarzl J.
- R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, [2023] S.C.J. No. 11
- R. v. Logan, 1981 MBCA 3463, [1981] M.J. No. 185
- R. v. Manko, 1992 MJQB 273, [1992] M.J. No. 273
- R. v. Shields, 2002 O.J. No. 4876 (Ont. C.J.), per Baldwin J.
- R. v. Wijesinha, 1995 SCC 67, [1995] S.C.J. No. 49
- Regan v. Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132, [2016] O.J. No. 3342, per Pattillo J.
- Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4, [2025] S.C.J. No. 4
- Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193, [2025] O.J. No. 1571, per Strezos J.
- Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048, [2020] O.J. No. 3555, per Favreau J.
1. INTRODUCTION
[1] Those who file frivolous or meritless appeals in order to delay, or for an improper purpose, may be engaging in an abuse of the court’s process or in obstructing the administration of justice, or purposely compromising the ends of justice. In this application under s. 51 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 (“P.O.A.”), the City of Brampton Prosecutors contend that Adelin-Bogdan MOCANU, Adelin B. MOCANU & Associates, Sachin MOUDGIL, Traffic Justice, and Ticket Justice (“the respondents”) have been filing hundreds of frivolous and meritless appeals with the Provincial Offences Appeal Court in the Region of Peel and in the City of Toronto for an improper purpose, and it is this wrongful ploy that the City of Brampton Prosecutors wish to curtail. In particular, the City of Brampton Prosecutors contend that the respondents would enter a guilty plea to a Highway Traffic Act offence or to regulatory offence on behalf of their clients, then a few days later file a Notice of Appeal in order to appeal that conviction for the purpose of having the conviction stayed and removed from their clients’ driving record at the Ministry of Transportation, and then the respondents would do nothing with the appeal nor attempt to perfect the appeal in order to delay the conviction from ever appearing on the defendants’ driving records, so that the defendants’ motor vehicle insurance premiums would not be adversely affected, nor would their driver’s licence suspensions from the accumulation of demerit points or remedial driving sanctions then come into effect, since the convictions would not appear on their driver’s records while the appeal was pending.
[2] To address this purported wrongful ploy utilized by the respondents, the City of Brampton Prosecutors had applied for an order on April 25, 2025, under s. 51 of the P.O.A., to compel the defendants who had retained the respondents to act as their legal representative, to personally appear or attend court so that a proper plea inquiry by the presiding justice could be conducted with the defendants for guilty pleas that the respondents had wanted to enter on behalf of their clients. The basis for the prosecution to seek such an order was based on the contention that the respondents had been “gaming the system” by filing these unwarranted, meritless, or frivolous appeals of the convictions that had resulted from the guilty pleas that had been entered by the respondents for their clients in the Provincial Offences Courts in the City of Toronto and the City of Brampton and on a ruling from Justice Strezos in Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193, in which the City of Toronto Prosecutors were seeking directions from the Provincial Offences Appeal Court on what to do with the approximately 250 unperfected appeals filed by the respondents in that jurisdiction.
[3] The City of Brampton Prosecutors also contend that the respondents were “gaming the system” by filing hundreds of these meritless or frivolous appeals for the purpose of delay and for an improper purpose, since the respondents had already entered guilty pleas on behalf of their clients supposedly on their clients’ instructions, but then immediately filed an appeal of those convictions with the Provincial Offences Appeal Court for the Region of Peel in order that their clients’ convictions on those guilty pleas would be removed or not appear on their clients driving record or driver’s abstract at the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario pending the outcome of the appeals. Those guilty pleas and subsequent convictions would then not have any negative or adverse effect on their client’s motor vehicle insurance premiums or potential driver’s licence suspensions for the accumulation of demerit points, since no conviction would then appear on their driver’s records. Moreover, once the appeal was filed by the respondents, the respondents would then do nothing to perfect the appeal, nor would they seek a date for the appeal to be argued and the appeal of those convictions would then sit idle or in limbo for years, and as such, the prosecution submits that the appeals from the convictions from the guilty pleas that had been entered by the respondents on behalf of their clients were being filed for an improper purpose.
[4] When the City of Brampton Prosecutors had brought this application on April 25, 2025, Sachin Moudgil, a paralegal, had appeared on behalf of the Mocanu paralegal firm. After reviewing Strezos J.’s ruling in Toronto (City) v. Becerra, this court was satisfied that filing hundreds of frivolous and meritless appeals or appeals for an improper purpose could compromise the ends of justice and be an abuse of the court’s process. Because of this concern with the abuse of the court’s process, this court then ordered that for the future, all of the respondents’ (Mocanu’s and his paralegal firm’s) clients would have to personally appear in or attend court for their trials or for anticipated guilty pleas, by virtue of s. 51 of the P.O.A. There were then subsequent appearances by paralegal Sachin Moudgil before this court and none of their clients had appeared personally in court either virtually or physically, despite being ordered by this court under s. 51 to have their clients personally appear or attend in court. This potential disregard of this court’s order under s. 51 would require further summonses to be issued by the court, add further delay, waste court resources, and be unfair to the City of Brampton’s prosecution of the respondents’ clients and the public interest in having those matters dealt with in a timely fashion.
[5] Ergo, to address the possibility that the respondents might resist or not comply with this court’s order under s. 51 to have their clients appear or attend personally, and so as not to inconvenience the respondents’ clients from the requirement to attend court personally under s. 51, and to protect the integrity of the Ontario Court of Justice in particular and the administration of justice in general, this court decided to reconsider its order of April 25, 2025 on May 12, 2025, and arrived at a different and less onerous measure to address the prosecution’s concerns about the respondents filing frivolous or meritless appeals or appeals with improper purpose after they had entered guilty pleas on behalf of their clients. In addition, Strezos J. had emphasized in Toronto (City) v. Becerra of the importance of the Provincial Offences Court conducting a thorough “plea inquiry” in respect to guilty pleas that would be entered by the respondents on behalf of their clients to curtail this improper use of appeals to “game the system”. Hence, the new order issued by this court on May 12, 2025, comprises of the respondents being required to file a statutory declaration with the Brampton Prosecutors and the Provincial Offences Court under s. 43 of the Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, E.23, for guilty pleas on behalf of their clients without the requirement of their clients having to appear or attend personally for a plea inquiry. The statutory declaration that is outlined below will contain the client’s statement that he or she has authorized the respondents to enter a guilty plea to a specific offence and also statements related to a plea inquiry provided for under ss. 45(3) and 45(3.1) of the P.O.A. Ergo, these are the written reasons for first granting the City of Brampton Prosecutors’ application under s. 51 of the P.O.A. on April 25, 2025, and the written reasons for reconsidering that order on May 12, 2025:
2. REASONS FOR ORDERS
(A) Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193
[6] Strezos J. in Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193, at paras. 1 to 6, summarized the City of Toronto’s application for directions from the Provincial Offences Appeal Court in Toronto, regarding approximately 250 outstanding Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, appeals pending before the Provincial Offences Appeal Court filed by a paralegal firm named “Ticket Justice” operated by Adelin B. Mocanu, a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. The City of Toronto Prosecutors contended that a pattern had occurred: a guilty plea was entered, an appeal was filed, and then nothing was done to perfect the appeal. Many Notices of Appeal alleged ineffective representation or non-existent grounds. The appeals were filed by Kiril Kovuntunko, employed by Mocanu’s firm but not licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.
[7] Strezos J. further detailed that most guilty pleas were entered by licensed paralegals Mocanu, Guadangoli, or Lacaria acting as agents for defendants; appeals were initiated by Kovuntunko; notices of appeal were vague; no transcripts were filed; and some offences dated back five years. Mocanu admitted instructing Kovuntunko to commence appeals and that he was principal of Ticket Justice.
(B) The April 25, 2025 Orders and Summonses Issued
[8] On April 25, 2025, Sachin Moudgil, a paralegal and associate of Mocanu’s firm, appeared in Brampton Provincial Offences Court. Prosecutor De Falco provided the court with Strezos J.’s ruling in Toronto (City) v. Becerra, which addressed hundreds of frivolous or meritless appeals filed to delay convictions appearing on driving records. The City of Brampton Prosecutors sought an order under s. 51 requiring defendants represented by the respondents to personally attend court for trials or guilty pleas.
[9] This court granted the application and ordered Mocanu and his firm to have all clients personally appear or attend court for guilty pleas and trials, issuing summonses under s. 51.
[10] Strezos J. had emphasized the importance of plea inquiries to ensure that guilty pleas are informed and that plea negotiations proceed fairly.
[11-13] The respondents allegedly filed appeals shortly after entering guilty pleas to improperly delay convictions appearing on driving records, without perfecting the appeals, to avoid insurance premium increases or licence suspensions. This conduct was likened to the “Alessandro” scheme involving fraudulent removal of convictions from driving records.
(C) The Alessandro Scheme
[14-17] The “Alessandro” scheme involved paralegals Giuseppe and Nicolino Alessandro fraudulently inducing the Ministry of Transportation to remove convictions from driving records by filing fake appeal documents. They were convicted of forgery, uttering forged documents, and obstruction of justice. The scheme undermined the administration of justice and public safety by allowing drivers to avoid suspensions and pay lower insurance premiums. The Law Society of Ontario denied Nicolino Alessandro’s paralegal licence based on this conduct.
(D) Filing Meritless or Frivolous Appeals as Obstruction of Justice or Abuse of Process
[18-24] The court discussed the concept of “fraud against the court” and the Criminal Code provisions on fabricating evidence (s. 137) and obstruction of justice (s. 139). Filing frivolous or meritless appeals to delay convictions could amount to obstruction of justice or abuse of process. The Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of “the course of justice” includes investigatory and disciplinary proceedings.
[25-30] The court reviewed cases of obstruction of justice, including R. v. Gardner, where a traffic court agent lied to the court, and other cases involving paralegals and lawyers convicted of obstruction or fabricating documents.
[31-32] Filing frivolous appeals for improper purposes disrupts the legal process, wastes judicial resources, and may constitute obstruction of justice or abuse of process.
[33] Ordering transcripts and then cancelling them to delay appeals is another ploy to “game the system” and may be an abuse of process or obstruction of justice.
[34] The Ministry of Transportation should consider using a “Conviction (Appeal Pending)” notation on driving records to prevent abuse of the appeal process.
[35-41] Filing frivolous or meritless appeals may be an abuse of process, as established in analogous landlord-tenant cases and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. Abuse of process is a broad, flexible doctrine to prevent misuse of court procedures.
(E) Paralegal Rules of Conduct
[42-60] The court reviewed the Law Society of Ontario’s Paralegal Rules of Conduct and Professional Conduct Guidelines, emphasizing duties to uphold the administration of justice, act with integrity, avoid misleading tribunals, and refrain from frivolous or malicious proceedings. Filing frivolous or meritless appeals to “game the system” may contravene these rules.
(F) Plea Inquiry Obligations
[61-64] The court emphasized the importance of conducting thorough plea inquiries under s. 45 of the P.O.A. to ensure guilty pleas are voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, referencing R. v. Shields and the Criminal Code s. 606 amendments.
(G) Appearance by Agent or Legal Representative Not Absolute
[65-71] While defendants may appear by representative under s. 50(1) of the P.O.A., the court may order personal attendance under s. 51 and issue summonses accordingly. The summons form and service methods are prescribed by regulation.
(H) Reconsideration of the April 25, 2025 Order
[72-75] On May 12, 2025, the court reconsidered the April 25 order to reduce inconvenience to respondents’ clients. The new order allows clients to avoid personal attendance by filing a solemn declaration under s. 43 of the Evidence Act confirming their guilty plea and related plea inquiry statements. Failure to comply may result in summonses and potential obstruction of justice consequences.
Dated at the City of Brampton on June 9, 2025.
Quon J.P.
Ontario Court of Justice