Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Offences Appeal Court)
Date: 2025-08-14
Offence No.: 4860-7320209 et al.
Parties
Between:
His Majesty the King (City of Toronto) Respondent
— And —
Miguel Becerra #2 et al. Appellant
Before the Court
Justice: Louis P. Strezos
Heard: May 26, 27, 2025; June 10, 11, 2025
Reasons for Judgment: Released August 14, 2025
Counsel:
- Ms. V. Pankou and Ms. A. Katsev — Counsel for the Applicant, the City of Toronto
- Mr. Adelin B. Mocanu — Paralegal Representative for the Respondents
- Mr. Richard Litkowski — Amicus Curiae
Contents
I. OVERVIEW II. THE APPEALS – NO INTENTION TO PROCEED III. EXPLOITATION OF SECTION 5 OF O. REG. 339/94 IV. EXPLOITATION OF THE DEMERIT POINT SYSTEM V. APPEALS "NOT PROCEEDED WITH" VI. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS VII. CONCLUSION – ABUSE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] Adelin B. Mocanu, a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario ("LSO") manipulated the appeal process governed by Part 1, s. 135(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33.
[2] Mr. Mocanu did so by filing over two hundred and twenty meritless appeals. All of them were filed after guilty pleas that either he, or a member of his firm "Ticket Justice", entered for a defendant charged with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990 ("HTA").
[3] What is astounding about the notices of appeal is that most of them stated that the defendant was not guilty, wanted a trial or vaguely stated "as the transcripts may reveal". There was never any intention to proceed with the appeals. Not one of them. Their purpose was two-fold. The first was to exploit the operation of section 5 of O. Reg. 339/94 "Demerit Point System" by filing the appeals. That section – provided certain appeal steps are taken – prevents both the conviction and demerit points from being recorded by the Registrar on a person's driving record until the "conviction is sustained on appeal".
[4] The second and related purpose by filing the appeals was to create a two-year delay from the date of the offence to avoid the accrual of demerit points and the remedial steps that may be triggered up to and including cancellation of a license. This is because in Ontario demerit points are removed from a person's driving record two years after the offence date, not the conviction date. What does this mean in practical terms? Of the two hundred and forty-two appeals before me, 136 of them (over 50%) had offence dates two years prior to June 11, 2025 -- the date I sustained the convictions. In the result, for those Appellants, demerit points will never accrue.
[5] Mr. Mocanu's scheme is hopefully at an end.
[6] I also dismissed another 18 appeals commenced by an unknown agency called "Traffic Tasks Legal". No "person" -- let alone a paralegal licensed by the LSO -- was identified in the Notices of Appeal. They too were from guilty pleas. Nothing had been done to perfect them. Not one transcript was filed though transcripts were ordered. Although notified of the hearing date, not one personal Appellant appeared. Emails by the Clerk of the Court to Traffic Tasks Legal went unanswered. The circumstances surrounding the filing of the Traffic Tasks Legal appeals are curious.
[7] These reasons address: (i) what my review of the appeal files revealed during some four hearing days and, (ii) why I dismissed 242 Appeals on June 11, 2025.
II. THE APPEALS – NO INTENTION TO PROCEED
[8] The appeals came before me as a result of a motion for directions brought by the City of Toronto. I need not repeat the details of that decision: Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193 ("Becerra #1"). Only two points bear mention for the purpose of these reasons. First, I ordered that all the transcripts for the appeals Mr. Mocanu commenced be filed so that I could assess what transpired on the guilty pleas.
[9] Second, I directed that given that most of the appeals alleged ineffective assistance by the paralegal representative (astoundingly Mr. Mocanu himself or an associate of his) that the protocol set out by Libman J., in City of Toronto v. Hill, 2007 ONCJ 253 be followed within certain deadlines. My orders were largely ignored, save for the filing of some transcripts. No material was filed in support of the alleged grounds of appeal. This is hardly surprising; they were all guilty pleas. What remained to be decided was whether there was any intention to proceed with the Appeals.
[10] The answer to that question was and is no.
[11] With minor variations a review of the appeal files set out in Schedule "A" reveals the following pattern:
(a) Ticket Justice Appeals
Mr. Mocanu or one of his associate paralegals, Victor Lacaria or Christina F. Guadagnoli, would enter a guilty plea to the HTA offence as charged or a lesser offence acting as agent for the Defendant.
The presiding Justice of the Peace would be advised that they had instructions to enter the plea -- many times said to be "in writing". With that representation being made, the Court accepted the plea.
The Defendant then paid the fine prior to expiry of the 30-day appeal period and sometimes only days after the guilty plea was entered.
Transcripts were ordered but until my judgment in Becerra #1, not one transcript had been filed with the Court.
The grounds of appeal varied from the defendant not being guilty, wanting a trial or said to be as "the transcripts may reveal." The transcripts filed were short, a page or two.
Many of the Notices of Appeal contained pre-printed grounds of appeal that would later be filled in with the Appellant's particulars, often in handwriting and different colours of ink.
The repeated use of pre-printed forms with the same or similar grounds of appeal is indicative of a plan that an appeal would be filed following the guilty plea. Why else have the grounds already filled in?
Filing the appeals within 30 days was no accident. By doing so this avoided the inevitable judicial scrutiny that would arise from a motion to extend the time to file an appeal arising from a guilty plea.
Many of the notices of appeal were commenced by one Kiril Kovuntunko at the direction of Mr. Mocanu. The LSO does not license him.
There was never any intention to proceed with the appeals. Mr. Mocanu conceded as much:
THE COURT: It seems to me there was no intention to proceed with these appeals, ever. Is that fair?
MR. MOCANU: I'll be very general in my comment, but I would say that's fair.
Irrespective of this exchange, my independent review of the appeal files makes this conclusion inescapable. Indeed, not one substantive argument was advanced regarding the validity of the guilty plea.
In the end, the sole purpose of the appeals was to delay the conviction being recorded on a person's driving record and the accrual of demerit points.
(b) The Traffic Tasks Legal Appeals
[12] Traffic Tasks Legal filed eighteen appeals after I rendered my decision in Becerra #1 on April 7, 2025, and the concerns raised therein. That said, Mr. Mocanu disavowed any involvement in these appeals. There are some curious coincidences surrounding these appeals that cause me concern.
[13] First, many of the guilty pleas were entered by Mr. Mocanu's paralegal associate Ms. Guadagnoli and one by Mr. Mocanu himself. How the Appellants ended up with different and now unidentified Appellant representation, remains a mystery to me.
[14] Second, the appeals were filed in three tranches: six appeals on April 9, 2025; eight appeals on April 25, 2025, and four appeals on May 7, 2025. The pooling of the appeals for filing, all with the same objective as the Ticket Justice appeals, is indicative of a continued scheme to manipulate the appeal process for an improper purpose.
[15] Third, the Notices of Appeal do not contain the name of the Appellate Representative, only an address and an email: traffictaskslgl@gmail.com:
[16] I find that the omission of any name on the Form 1 was done on purpose to avoid any accountability following the release of my decision in Becerra #1.
[17] Fourth, the Traffic Tasks Legal appeals reveal the same pattern as the Ticket Justice Appeals that Mr. Mocanu instructed be commenced by a Mr. Kovuntunko.
[18] I will make one final observation about the Ticket Tasks Legal Appeals. In my view, the signature appearing at line 19 in the Notice of Appeals are nearly identical to the signature on the appeals Mr. Mocanu directed be commenced.
[19] In any event, none of the Traffic Tasks Legal notices of appeal have an LSO authorized representative listed. In my view, proper identification is neither optional nor a formality when filing a Notice of Appeal. Part V of the General Provision of the POA identifies who may act for a Defendant on POA matters, the HTA being one. Section 82 of the POA provides that:
Representation
- A defendant may act by representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 131 (14).
[20] The POA defines representative as follows:
"representative" means, in respect of a proceeding to which this Act applies, a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding; ("représentant")
[21] In my view, both Form 1 and s. 82 of the POA require that a person authorized under the Law Society Act be personally identified in the notice of appeal, together with their LSO# -- before the appeal can be accepted by the Court. This is not formalism. It allows Court staff to communicate with the Appellant representative. In short, the Court should not be left to wonder who is filing the appeals as was done by Traffic Tasks Legal by only providing an email.
III. EXPLOITATION OF SECTION 5 OF O. REG. 339/94
[22] The filing of meritless appeals following guilty pleas was done to avoid the recording of the conviction by exploiting the operation of s. 5 of O. Reg. 339/94 "Demerit Point System". Section 5 provides that:
- (1) If a person convicted of an offence set out in Column 1 of the Table appeals the conviction and notice of the appeal is served on the Registrar, the conviction and the demerit points related to it shall not be entered on the person's record unless the conviction is sustained on appeal. O. Reg. 339/94, s. 5 (1).
[23] Section 5 does not distinguish between convictions arising from a trial or a guilty plea – it only refers to "convicted of an offence". In all the appeals before me, a guilty plea was entered on the trial date to either the offence charged or a lesser one. Critically, pre-printed forms were ready to go. All that needed to be done was to fill in the details, pay the fine, order the transcripts, file the appeal, and notify the Registrar of the Ministry of Transportation.
[24] This not only explains why Mr. Mocanu filed the appeals but why there was never any intention to proceed with them. In discussing dismissal of the appeals as not being proceeded with, discussed further below, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: So, what would happen is if the appeals are not proceeded with and ultimately, they're dismissed, any conviction that was entered against the individual would then be put back on their driving record from the Ministry of Transportation? Including these cases, the convictions, if I dismiss the appeals based on your submissions, will be put back on the driving record. Is that accurate?
MR. MOCANU: That's correct.
THE COURT: Based on all the appeals that you've done?
MR. MOCANU: That is correct.
IV. EXPLOITATION OF THE DEMERIT POINT SYSTEM
[25] Mr. Mocanu also undermined operation of the demerit point system in Ontario by filing sham appeals. In this portion of my reasons, I explain why.
[26] One of the mechanisms put in place to monitor driver responsibility and safety in Ontario is the accumulated demerit point system. Most, if not all, Ontarians are familiar with this. "Points" can have an impact on a person's license and insurance rates. The program also allows the Ministry of Transportation to monitor those who have an escalating disregard for the rules of the road as set out in the HTA. Conversely, the demerit point system tends to reward drivers with "no points".
[27] The demerit point system finds its Legislative basis in s. 56 of the HTA. It provides:
Demerit point system
56 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for a demerit point system for drivers of motor vehicles or of street cars. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 5.
Same
(2) The demerit point system may provide for the cancellation and suspension of licences and may require that a driver, in order to show cause why his or her licence should not be cancelled or suspended, attend an interview or group session with an official of the Ministry or provide written information to the Ministry or both attend an interview or group session and provide written information. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 5.
[28] The Legislature contemplated a range of options varying from cancellation, license suspensions, interviews, or group sessions as remedial measures for those who accumulate demerit points. The points are scaled based on the relative seriousness of the offence. The remedial objective of s. 56 of the HTA is implemented by O. Reg. 339/94 which details how the demerit points system works. The filing of an appeal, as we have seen, removes not only the conviction but any associated demerit points until the conviction is sustained in appeal.
[29] The Legislature has also decided that demerit points are removed from a person's driving record two years from the date of the offence and not the date of the conviction. While the statutory language could be clearer, the two-year offence roll-off date is a result of the operation of two provisions contained in O. Reg 339/94. They must be read together. Section 1 and 2 provide:
Interpretation
- (1) In this Regulation,
"accumulated demerit points" means the total demerit points in a person's record acquired as a result of offences committed within any period of two years, less any points deducted for that period under this Regulation. O. Reg. 339/94, s. 1 (1); O. Reg. 204/10, s. 1 (1).
General
- (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a person is convicted of an offence under a provision of an Act, regulation or municipal by-law set out in Column 1 of the Table to this Regulation and the penalty imposed by the court for the conviction does not include a period of licence suspension, the Registrar shall record in respect of the person, as of the date of commission of the offence, the number of demerit points set out opposite thereto in Column 2. O. Reg. 339/94, s. 2; O. Reg. 338/18, s. 1 (1).
[30] The wording is rather awkward. Section 1 operates to deduct the points after two years. Section 2 directs that the Registrar shall record the conviction as of the date of the commission of the offence. The result is that demerit points accrue for two years from the date of the offence, not the date of conviction.
[31] While this may seem counter-intuitive when a guilty plea is entered, that is the way the Ontario demerit point system works. I would also add that the regulation seems to conflict with s. 112 of the POA which states:
Stay
- The filing of a notice of appeal does not stay the conviction unless a judge so orders. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 112.
[32] This may well be a Legislative oversight. I do not know. In any event, the current wording of the regulations leaves open the type of abuse employed by Mr. Mocanu and that previously employed in Alessandro. The only real difference is that in Alessandro the paralegal forged the notices of appeal. Here the guilty pleas were entered as part of a scheme to plead, appeal, do nothing and hope nobody noticed. City Prosecutors fortunately did. In my view, the scheme employed by Mr. Mocanu was simply a variant of what occurred in Nicolino Alessandro v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 40.
V. APPEALS "NOT PROCEEDED WITH"
[33] Given the unmistakable pattern that emerged from a review of the appeal files, I will not and do not need to review every one of them in these reasons. Indeed, by the end of the hearing of the appeals, Mr. Mocanu essentially agreed that they should all be dismissed. I thus turn my attention to my dismissal powers sitting as a Part I Appeal Judge for appeals governed by s. 135 of the POA.
[34] For Part I matters the power to dispose of appeals that are not proceeded is governed by two provisions: (i) ss. 137(1)-(3) of the POA and (ii) O. Reg. 722/94. Section 137(1) provides:
Dismissal on abandonment
137 (1) Where an appeal has not been proceeded with or abandoned, the court may order that the appeal be dismissed. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 137.
Dismissal by a Justice
(2) Where the clerk of the court considers that an appeal has not been proceeded with or has been abandoned, the clerk may, after giving notice to the parties to the appeal, have the matter brought before a justice sitting in open court to determine whether the appeal has been abandoned and the appeal should be dismissed. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (59).
[35] There was some debate between the interaction of ss. 137(1) and ss. 137(2). Specifically, Segal and Libman in their text "The 2025 Annotated Provincial Offences Act" Thomson Reuters, 2015 at p. 1510 comment that "with the enactment of the Good Government Act, 2009 S.O. 2009, c. 33, the s. 137(1) dismissal power is triggered by the "clerk of the Court" bringing the matter before the Court. As they put it: "New subsection (2) put in place a mechanism to give effect to this dismissal power." That interpretation is no doubt correct when the appeals are brought forward by the Clerk of the Court.
[36] However, in Becerra #1 I ordered that the appeals be heard based on my appeal management power under O. Reg. 722/94. As a result, I am of the view that when an Appeal is ordered to be heard by a Judge of this Court s. 137(1) of the POA provides jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal "where it has not been proceeded with". Read this way, ss. 2 is an alternative route by which the Court can dismiss an appeal. In short, the provisions work in tandem when appeals languish.
[37] My view is supported by O. Reg 722/94 which governs the conduct of Part 1 Appeals. Section 12 and 13 provide:
DIRECTIONS
- A party to an appeal may make a motion to the court at any time for directions with respect to the conduct of the appeal. O. Reg. 722/94, r. 12.
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
- The court may dismiss an appeal where the appellant,
(a) does not attend in person or by counsel on the day set by the clerk for the hearing of the appeal;
(b) has filed a notice of abandonment;
(c) has not filed a transcript of evidence at trial, including reasons for judgment or sentence, if any, within 30 days after receiving notice of completion of the transcript from the clerk of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division); or
(d) has failed to comply with an order of the court in respect of the appeal. O. Reg. 722/94, r. 13.
[38] Given that there was no intention to proceed with any of the appeals, ss. 137(1) and s. 13 of O. Reg 722/94 should, in my view, be read together. In Becerra #1, I ordered that all the transcripts from the proceedings below be filed. Only a fraction of them were. Mr. Mocanu offered no reason why, although ordered to, he did not file them. In any event, I dismissed all appeals where he failed to file transcripts by the combined operation of ss. 137(1) of the POA and ss. 13 (c)-(d) of O. Reg. 722/94.
[39] Finally, the more liberal use of s. 12 motion for directions -- as was done here by the City -- would be welcome. They have several benefits. First, the Court could weed out meritless appeals early on. Second, issuing orders for the timely conduct of appeals, particularly those that have languished, resulting in "blitz lists" in this Court, would provide a mechanism to dismiss them if an Order is not complied with. Apart from backlogged appeals pending in this Court, such a practice would also identify, early on, those appeals that are filed to exploit the operation of the sections I have described above. Conversely, where an appeal has merit and the conviction or fine imposed may have significant consequences, access to justice is enhanced by focusing on the issues and obtaining an early hearing date.
VI. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
[40] Following the release of my decision in Becerra #1, His Worship Justice of the Peace Quon considered the obligations of Mr. Mocanu at the trial level in Brampton: Brampton (City) v. Mocanu, 2025 ONCJ 315. A detailed examination of his thoughtful reasons need not be conducted here save one area.
[41] Superimposed on all the statutory rules and regulations governing the appeals that I have reviewed are the ethical obligations owed by a licensee of the LSO: to the Court, to opposing counsel, and to the administration of justice. Justice of the Peace Quon covers these obligations in his decision. I need not repeat his analysis. I agree with it.
[42] In the matters before me, the appeal process was manipulated for an improper purpose: to avoid the consequences that follow from a guilty plea. Public safety was put at risk by this practice. Where an HTA conviction is not recorded by the Registrar on a person's driving record, bail decisions are less informed in respect of driving offences. More broadly, prosecutorial decisions become less informed. Sentencing decisions are made without a full picture of a person's driving history particularly in impaired driving cases. Insurer decision making, who rely on abstracts for risk assessment, is impeded. Other examples abound. It never should have happened, but it was a pervasive and sustained practice that continued even after my reasons in Becerra #1, by someone filing the Traffic Tasks Legal appeals.
VII. CONCLUSION – ABUSE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS
[43] The sole purpose of these appeals was to delay the recording of the conviction and accrual of demerits point by exploiting s. 5 of O. Reg 722/94. The Presiding Justice who accepted the guilty pleas was advised that it was being entered with instructions to do so by either Mr. Mocanu or one of his associates. What was not said was that an appeal would be launched in short order. I have no doubt if this fact was disclosed, the plea never would have been accepted. Nor would Prosecutors have negotiated a plea to a lesser offence.
[44] The entering of guilty pleas and subsequent filing of appeals was an abuse of the appeal process. The scheme also resulted in countless hours by Court staff processing appeals that were meritless. Close to four Court days were spent reviewing each appeal file. City Prosecutors no doubt spent countless hours dealing with the appeals. This never should have happened. In the end, whether the conduct of Mr. Mocanu is sanctionable elsewhere is beyond my purview.
[45] It is for the foregoing reasons that on June 11, 2025, I ordered that:
The appeals where no transcripts have been filed are dismissed under s. 137(1) of the Provincial Offences Act as there was never any intention to proceed with them and the Appellant did not comply with my s. 12 Order.
The appeals where transcripts had been filed were likewise dismissed under s. 137(1) of the Provincial Offences Act as there was never any intention to proceed with them.
The Traffic Task Legal appeals were dismissed as abandoned under s. 137(2), for failure of a representative or the defendant to appear personally: See O. Reg 722/94, ss. 13 (a).
[46] I wish to thank Mr. Litkowski, amicus curiae, for the invaluable assistance he provided during hearing of these appeals.
Released: August 14, 2025
Justice Louis P. Strezos
SCHEDULE "A"
| Defendant's Name | Offence Date | Trial Date | Offence Pleaded To | Legal Rep on Record | Appeal Filed Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABAWAI, OBAIDULLAH | 11-Mar-23 | 03-Sep-24 | 144 1 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| ABBALLE, ANTONIO | 02-Jul-23 | 24-Oct-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| ABBASI, SANAZ | 11-Jan-23 | 02-Jul-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| ABDULGHANI, MOHAMMAD | 29-Aug-23 | 26-Nov-24 | 142 1 | LACARIA | 09-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| ACCARDI, GIULIANO | 17-May-24 | 21-Jan-25 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 28-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| ADJETEY, ALBERT | 31-Jan-23 | 23-Jan-25 | 144 10 | MOCANU | 28-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| AGYARKO, ERIC | 14-Apr-23 | 09-Oct-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| AKHTAR, SHAKIB | 07-Mar-23 | 14-Aug-24 | 3 1 | MOCANU | 23-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| ALESSANDRO, NICOLINO | 24-May-24 | 14-Jan-25 | 159 1 | MOCANU | 23-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| AL-QAYSI, MUAYAD | 03-Nov-22 | 02-Aug-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 16-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| ALTMAMY, SABAH | 26-Aug-23 | 17-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| ALVA, JULIO | 01-May-23 | 17-Apr-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 23-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| AMARSINGH, SHEMAR | 11-Jun-23 | 22-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| ANASTASIOU, A | 05-Jun-23 | 17-Jan-25 | 65/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 31-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| ANDRADE, JUSTIN | 10-Jul-23 | 02-Jan-25 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 09-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| ARANEGA, ANTHONY | 14-Nov-23 | 16-Jul-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 02-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| ARSHAD, SYED | 10-Sep-23 | 29-Apr-24 | 78 1 1 | LACARIA | 28-May-24 | Dismissed |
| ATWAL, TANPREETPAL | 21-May-22 | 02-Feb-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 29-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| AYOOB KHAN, AHAMED | 05-Sep-22 | 06-Mar-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 22-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| AZIZI, SAWHIL | 05-Jul-23 | 06-Dec-24 | 75/60 | MOCANU | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| AZIZI, ZAHRA | 02-Sep-22 | 02-Feb-24 | 182 2 | MOCANU | 29-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| BAGOS-ESGA, FRANCISO | 17-May-23 | 24-Jan-25 | 182(2) | MOUDGIL, S. | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| BAKSH, JAVED | 01-Aug-23 | 04-Feb-25 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| BARKHO, MICHEL | 24-Apr-23 | 05-Sep-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 13-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| BARRINGTON, DOUGLAS | 02-Aug-23 | 03-Feb-25 | 65/50 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| BATTISTA, ADAMO A | 11-Jul-23 | 19-Aug-24 | 60/50 | MOCANU | 06-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| BAWA, JAISAL | 15-Aug-23 | 28-Jan-25 | 75/60 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| BECERRA, MIGUEL | 30-Apr-23 | 09-Oct-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| BERNARDI, DEANNA | 01-Sep-23 | 28-Aug-24 | 50/40 | LACARIA | 13-Sep-24 | Adjourned |
| BERTONE, ANTONIO | 05-Jan-23 | 17-May-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 31-May-24 | Dismissed |
| BHARUCHA, MUAZ | 30-Nov-22 | 03-Jul-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| BISCARDI, JOSHUA | 18-Feb-23 | 19-Apr-24 | 148 5 | LACARIA | 23-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| BLAINEY, BRIAN | 22-Aug-23 | 06-Nov-23 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| BORA, DEMIRCI | 24-Aug-23 | 25-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| BOTEV, VILLIAN | 02-Feb-23 | 10-Jul-24 | 75/60 | MOCANU | 09-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| BRADY, CALEB | 02-Aug-22 | 28-Feb-24 | 75/60 | LACARIA | 29-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| BRAR, SATWANT | 21-Feb-23 | 05-Sep-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 20-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| BRAVERMAN, MELANIE | 03-Apr-23 | 04-Oct-24 | 65/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| BROCCA, MICHAEL | 10-Jul-23 | 24-Sep-24 | 144 5 | GUADAGNOLI | 03-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| BUTTAR, JAMAL | 21-May-22 | 14-Feb-24 | 3 1 | LACARIA | 13-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| BYRNE, JONATHAN | 06-Jun-23 | 03-Jan-25 | 142 2 | MOUDGILS | 06-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| CAIN, MICHELLE | 21-Mar-23 | 08-Aug-24 | 144 5 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| CARANCI, ANTONIO | 29-Jun-23 | 09-Dec-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| CARINCI, ALDO | 22-Nov-23 | 16-Sep-24 | 50/40 | GUADAGNOLI | 04-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| CENTIKAYA, ILKAN | 27-Mar-23 | 30-May-24 | 144 10 | MOCANU | 07-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| CERESNE, FRANCES | 31-May-23 | 10-Feb-25 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| CHARLTON, JOHN | 22-Aug-23 | 27-Mar-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 10-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| CHEN, JOHNSON | 22-Nov-23 | 06-Nov-24 | 87/50 | MOCANU | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| CHOWDHURY, AHIA | 07-Jan-23 | 06-Oct-23 | 144 10 | LACARIA | 03-Nov-23 | Dismissed |
| CIALONE, NICHOLAS | 06-Apr-23 | 12-Nov-24 | 182 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 22-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| CINARI, BRIKEN | 14-Feb-23 | 16-Sep-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 27-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| COELHO, ANDRE | 05-May-20 | 07-May-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| CURBI, ALEN | 12-Nov-22 | 27-Jun-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| DACOSTA, BRIAN | 28-Jul-23 | 16-Aug-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| DANIEL, JACKSON | 18-Apr-23 | 26-Aug-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 19-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| DASILVA, KRYSTLE | 08-Feb-23 | 19-Jun-24 | 60/50 | MOCANU | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| DEGROOT, DIMITRI | 14-Dec-23 | 22-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| DEHGHANI CHAMPIRI, ALI | 03-Sep-23 | 02-Dec-24 | 144 5 | MOUDGIL, S. | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| DEMEDEIROS, ANDREW | 22-Jun-23 | 16-Sep-24 | 144 10 | MOCANU | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| D'ERCOLE, MICHAEL | 14-May-23 | 29-Jan-25 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| DHILLON, INDERPREET | 23-Oct-23 | 03-Sep-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 02-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| DIMACOPOULOS, ARGIRIOS | 02-Jul-22 | 13-Aug-24 | 182 2 | U/K | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| DIXON, DYNARE | 12-Jul-22 | 12-Feb-24 | 154 1 | LACARIA | 11-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| DMYTROW, JAMES | 16-Mar-23 | 24-Mar-25 | 106(1) | GUADAGNOLI | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| DONOVAN, ADAM | 28-Jun-23 | 05-Feb-25 | 42/30 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| DRAJEWICZ, MICHAEL | 21-Dec-22 | 24-Apr-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| DRESHAJ, KOLI | 19-Jul-23 | 11-Feb-25 | 65/50 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| ELKIND, MATTHEW | 26-Jul-20 | 19-Jul-23 | 55/40 | NESKOSKI | 01-Aug-23 | Dismissed |
| EOGLENT, MEBELLI | 25-Oct-22 | 01-Oct-24 | 142 2 | ROMBIS | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| ESTERON, JAYCEL | 18-Oct-23 | 27-Jan-25 | 154 1 | MOCANU | 06-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| FARAYAL, MAJID | 06-Jun-23 | 07-Apr-25 | 182(2) | MOCANU | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| FASHOLA, SHERIFDEEN | 11-Aug-21 | 05-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 01-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| FIALHO, FABIO | 01-Nov-23 | 13-Jan-25 | 50/40 | GUADAGNOLI | 28-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| FOCARINO, PETER | 27-Feb-24 | 07-Jan-25 | 182 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| FRIG, SOFYA | 04-Aug-23 | 25-Apr-25 | 142(2) | NATALE | 07-May-25 | DAA |
| GALLAPENI, REXHEP | 19-Apr-23 | 10-Oct-24 | 55/40 | MOCANU | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| GALVEZEAROA, AL | 15-Sep-23 | 08-Apr-25 | 79/60 | MOUDGIL, S | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| GHADIRI, FAHIM | 30-Jun-23 | 16-Sep-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 27-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| GHAFOORI, AHMAD | 07-Oct-23 | 04-Jul-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| GHANIM, FARAH | 14-Mar-22 | 07-Jun-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| GHARKEL, JASMEET | 14-Oct-23 | 21-Mar-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 10-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| GIAMMARIOLI, COLE | 15-May-23 | 07-Oct-24 | 182 2 | MOCANU | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| GINGELL, BRANDON | 16-Apr-24 | 18-Dec-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 10-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| GIORGI, ANGELO | 14-Apr-23 | 19-Aug-24 | 50/40 | FTA | 05-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| GJOKAJ, VALENTE | 20-Jun-22 | 18-Mar-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 10-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| GJONAJ, PRENG | 01-Dec-22 | 07-Jun-24 | 55/40 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| GJOSHI, EDUART | 27-Jan-23 | 14-May-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 31-May-24 | Dismissed |
| GODFREY, DONALD | 18-Nov-23 | 07-Nov-24 | 50/40 | GUADAGNOLI | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| GOGNA, SHANKAR | 24-Nov-23 | 07-Apr-25 | 60/50 | MOUDGIL, S. | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| GREER, RYAN | 05-Apr-24 | 25-Mar-25 | 142(2) | U/K | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| GUERRA, STEVEN | 27-Jun-23 | 10-Jan-25 | 182 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| GUPTA, RAGHAV | 08-Jan-23 | 03-Jun-24 | 154 1 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| HA, HOANG | 07-Aug-23 | 16-Aug-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| HAQUE, MOHAMED | 22-Mar-22 | 15-Jan-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 13-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| HASHIMI, SAID H. | 02-Jan-23 | 28-May-24 | 70/60 | MOCANU | 07-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| HASSAN, HADI | 11-Oct-23 | 15-Aug-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| HOANGHAINGUYEN, TRAN | 21-Apr-24 | 08-Jan-25 | 142 2 | U/K | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| HOSSEIN, ALEEFAH | 11-May-23 | 19-Sep-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| IANNELLO, NAZZARENO | 24-Nov-24 | 08-Jan-25 | 149/100 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| IANNELLO, NAZZARENO | 24-Nov-24 | 08-Jan-25 | 3 1 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| IAZOVTSKY, MARTIN | 03-Nov-24 | 18-Dec-24 | 55/40 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| IVANOV, VADYM | 06-Jul-23 | 01-16-25 | 106 1 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| JAAFAR, SAMEH | 23-Apr-23 | 05-Feb-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 06-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| JALALZAEI, MORTEZA | 13-Apr-23 | 27-Jun-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| JARQVIN CORONA, ANTONIO | 19-Mar-23 | 12-Sep-24 | 144 5 | GUADAGNOLI | 19-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| JASHARI, XHAFER | 09-Sep-23 | 03-Sep-24 | 144 10 | MOCANU | 13-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| JAVAID, ANAS | 12-Apr-22 | 07-Mar-24 | 55/40 | LACARIA | 22-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| JAWANSHIR, NAQUIBULLAH | 11-Jul-23 | 03-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| JOHAL, HARMINDER | 11-May-23 | 15-Jul-24 | 65/50 | U/K | 26-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| JORGONI, JERINA | 22-May-23 | 25-Nov-24 | 55/40 | MOUDGIL, S. | 07-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| JULIAN, KALISGA | 25-Apr-23 | 08-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| KAKAR, MAYANK | 24-Jun-22 | 27-Jan-25 | 144 10 | MOCANU | — | Dismissed |
| KAMALSINGH, KAMALSINGH | 15-Nov-23 | 19-Apr-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 23-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| KAPASOURIS, ALEXANDER | 24-May-22 | 04-Nov-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| KASSERI, DIONYSIA | 07-Sep-23 | 08-Oct-24 | 60/50 | U/K | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| KAVEHZADEH, PEDRAM | 11-Jul-23 | 06-Jan-25 | 70/60 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| KAZBEKOV, VLADIMIR | 02-Apr-24 | 24-Sep-24 | 148 5 | MOCANU | 04-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| KEARNEY, MARK | 25-Feb-22 | 08-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 07-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| KERMALI, AZIM | 06-Aug-23 | 20-Sep-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 27-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| KHAN, SHAMSHER | 17-Apr-23 | 26-Aug-24 | 65/50 | LACARIA | 19-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| KILROY, COLIN | 21-Sep-23 | 07-Nov-24 | 55/40 | MOCANU | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| KIMEL, CHLOE | 11-Nov-22 | 26-Jan-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 22-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| KLOPOT, ROBERT | 22-May-23 | 13-Nov-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 22-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| KODRA, ERLIS | 24-Sep-20 | 02-Feb-24 | 85/70 | MOCANU | 28-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| KOSTADINOV, KOSTADIN | 21-Mar-22 | 12-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 07-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| KOZAREVA, RADIANA | 11-Apr-23 | 21-Oct-24 | 65/50 | MOCANU | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| KUMARALAGAN, PAVITHIRA | 18-Jul-23 | 05-Dec-24 | 182 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| KUSHA, MICHAEL | 08-Jun-22 | 29-Feb-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 22-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| LARIONOV, IGOR | 08-Apr-23 | 06-Aug-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 16-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| LEE, IN-SOOK | 06-Dec-23 | 17-Jan-25 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 31-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| LEE, OLIVIA | 27-Jun-24 | 06-Feb-25 | 154 1 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| LOURENCO, CATRINA | 27-Jun-23 | 18-Oct-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| LUTCHMAN, JORDAN | 06-Sep-23 | 28-May-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 07-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| MA, CHRISTOPHER | 02-Dec-23 | 25-Sep-24 | 119/90 | MOCANU | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| MA, JASON | 16-Dec-23 | 15-Aug-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 23-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| MAGDIC, MICHAEL | 27-Sep-22 | 22-Nov-23 | 65/50 | LACARIA | 19-Dec-23 | Dismissed |
| MAI, WILLIAM | 29-Nov-23 | 15-Apr-25 | 70/60 | MOUDGIL, S. | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| MAJARI, POUYA | 18-Mar-22 | 19-Jan-24 | 65/50 | LACARIA | 16-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| MANGAT, ARSHWINDER | 22-Oct-22 | 06-Jun-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| MANSOUR, MERAY | 19-Apr-23 | 21-Oct-24 | 144 12 | GUADAGNOLI | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| MARTINEZ CAMARENA, LORENA | 13-Mar-22 | 08-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 07-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| MASON, ASHLEY | 19-Oct-23 | 05-Sep-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 20-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| MAZZUCCO, CAMILLO | 23-May-23 | 07-Feb-25 | 60/50 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| MEHMETI, ARTUR | 04-May-23 | 07-Jan-25 | 144 5 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| MEHMOOD, RAJA | 04-Apr-23 | 13-Aug-24 | 144 10 | MOCANU | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| MENGUA, LANCE | 19-Mar-23 | 26-Aug-24 | 144 10 | LACARIA | 19-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| MIAH, MOHAMMED | 27-Nov-23 | 13-Aug-24 | 109/90 | LACARIA | 23-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| MIGNACCO, CLAUDIO | 05-Apr-23 | 09-Sep-24 | 75/60 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| MISTRY, AUVNI | 16-Jun-23 | 07-Jan-25 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| MOHAMED, NALIR MOHAMED | 04-Jun-22 | 21-Nov-23 | 106 1 | LACARIA | 19-Dec-23 | Dismissed |
| MOLINARO, CARMINE | 22-Aug-23 | 06-Aug-24 | 154 1 | MOCANU | 16-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| MORAD, ALIREZA | 01-Apr-23 | 25-Oct-24 | 144 10 | GUADAGNOLI | 01-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| MOSKO, JEFFREY | 19-Jan-24 | 14-Jan-25 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 23-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| MULTANI, AJITPAL | 15-Jan-23 | 17-May-24 | 144 5A | MOCANU | 31-May-24 | Dismissed |
| NADARAJAH, SRIKANTHAN | 12-Mar-23 | 03-Sep-24 | 136 1 | GUADAGNOLI | 19-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| NAEM, MARIEM | 20-Feb-22 | 14-Dec-23 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 12-Jan-24 | Dismissed |
| NAFEE-U, MUSTAFA | 12-Dec-23 | 05-Nov-24 | 142 1 | U/K | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| NAQVI, RAGHDA | 03-Mar-23 | 23-Aug-24 | 136 1 | GUADAGNOLI | 05-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| NAQVI, ZAIN | 20-Apr-23 | 06-Jan-25 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| NAZIR, ADRIAN | 08-Jul-24 | 10-Jul-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 09-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| NERO, DAVID | 29-Jun-23 | 12-Feb-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 11-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| NOVAK, IVANA | 02-Jan-24 | 25-Jun-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| OHENE-ADU, REXFORD | 23-Jun-23 | 02-Aug-24 | 182 2 | LACARIA | 06-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| PAGLIOCCA, JOHN | 21-Mar-23 | 03-Jul-24 | 65/50 AS IS | GUADAGNOLI | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| PAJTESA, ARBEN | 18-Sep-23 | 14-Jun-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| PANAICH, JAGDEEP | 31-May-23 | 15-Nov-24 | 75/60 | MOUDGILS | 22-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| PANNU, PAWANPREET | 30-Jul-23 | 05-Nov-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 15-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| PANUCCI, RAMO FC | 08-Jul-22 | 13-May-24 | 144 5A | LACARIA | 31-May-24 | Allowed |
| PASQUALINO, FRANCESCO | 04-Apr-22 | 01-Feb-24 | 85/70 | LACARIA | 29-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| PERSAUD, JASON | 27-Apr-23 | 12-Aug-24 | 182 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 23-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| PETERS, CHANTAL | 08-Jan-23 | 21-May-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 07-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| PETTINELLI, GIUSEPPE | 07-Nov-22 | 07-May-24 | 85/70 | MOCANU | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| PIECHOTA, BEATA | 01-Mar-21 | 10-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 07-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| POLIDORO, LUCA | 21-Sep-23 | 27-Mar-25 | 115/100 | FARAHANI, S. | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| PREVOST, TERRY | 04-Aug-23 | 23-Apr-25 | 75/70 | GUADAGNOLI | 07-May-25 | DAA |
| PROSKINAS, JEVGENIUS | 20-Jul-23 | 18-Nov-24 | 60/50 | MOUDGIL, S. | 27-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| PUSHPARAJAN, ARJUN | 29-Sep-22 | 03-Apr-24 | 65/50 | LACARIA | 10-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| QARRI, LANDI | 27-Jul-23 | 27-Jan-25 | 55/40 | MOCANU | 06-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| QUARISHI, AREF | 22-Oct-22 | 02-Apr-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 18-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| RAFIQ, MUHAMMAD | 27-Jan-24 | 24-Jun-24 | 60/50 | MOCANU | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| RAHSHANI, MASOUD | 15-Jun-23 | 04-Jul-24 | 119/90 | MOCANU | 12-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| RAMJATTAN, VANESSA | 12-Jan-23 | 12-Aug-24 | 65/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 23-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| RASHID, KAZI | 27-Dec-23 | 19-Sep-24 | 142 1 | GUADAGNOLI | 03-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| RECINOS, BRENDA | 31-May-23 | 16-Oct-24 | 75/60 | GUADAGNOLI | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SACCO, LICIA | 16-Jun-23 | 22-Jan-25 | 75/60 | GUADAGNOLI | 28-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| SAHOTA, ASHISH | 21-Oct-23 | 22-Apr-25 | 182(2) | GUADAGNOLI | 07-May-25 | DAA |
| SAID-BACELAR, LEO | 29-Nov-22 | 09-Oct-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 21-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SAINI, LAKSHAY | 20-Mar-23 | 16-May-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 31-May-24 | Dismissed |
| SALIM, LAYTH | 09-Jun-23 | 24-Sep-24 | 65/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 04-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SANTONATO, HOLLY | 22-Feb-22 | 10-Dec-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| SANTOS, ANA-KRISTINA | 08-Jan-23 | 17-May-24 | 50/40 | MOCANU | 31-May-24 | Dismissed |
| SAPAGE, MELANIE | 19-Sep-23 | 08-Apr-25 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| SARMIENTO, GERMAN | 11-Feb-24 | 23-Jul-24 | 154 1 | LACARIA | 02-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| SEGUMOHAMED, MOHAMED | 05-Jul-23 | 03-Mar-25 | 142(2) | GUADAGNOLI | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| SERRAO, PASQUALE | 30-Jun-23 | 20-Feb-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 20-Mar-24 | Dismissed |
| SGRO, CHRISTOPHER | 27-Feb-23 | 19-Sep-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 04-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SHABANI, ESTER | 19-Jun-23 | 14-Nov-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 22-Nov-24 | Dismissed |
| SHARIFOV, DOSTON | 06-Jan-23 | 08-Mar-24 | 154 1 | LACARIA | 03-Apr-24 | Dismissed |
| SHARIFOV, SAVLATBEK | 09-Jun-23 | 16-Oct-24 | 70/60 | U/K | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SHARMA, LUKESH | 21-Nov-22 | 07-Jun-24 | 3 1 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| SHEKHTER, DAVID | 12-Apr-23 | 09-Sep-24 | 55/40 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| SIDHU, INDER | 03-Sep-23 | 08-Apr-25 | 142(2) | GUADAGNOLI | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| SIDORA, MATTHEW | 02-Jan-23 | 05-Jun-24 | 115/100 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| SINGH, ANMOL | 03-Sep-24 | 03-Oct-24 | 142 2 | ROMBIS | 18-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| SINGH, CHRISTOPHER | 05-Jul-23 | 20-Mar-25 | 142(2) | U/K | 09-Apr-25 | DAA |
| SINGH, DILRAJ | 28-Apr-22 | 15-Jan-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 13-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| SINGH, PARAMPREET | 25-Apr-23 | 19-Aug-24 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 06-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| SINGH, ROBIN | 02-May-23 | 17-Jun-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| SINGH, YADWINDER | 27-Jun-23 | 22-Jan-25 | 75/60 | MOCANU | 13-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| SINNIAH, VALARMATHY | 11-Aug-23 | 09-Dec-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| SIVALOGANATHAN, THARSANA | 14-Mar-23 | 12-Sep-24 | 60/50 | MOCANU | 27-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| SLUPKOWSKI, TADEUSZ | 10-Dec-22 | 07-Jun-24 | 142 1 | LACARIA | 21-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| SOLIS-SYMES, SERENA | 28-Oct-23 | 17-Jun-24 | 78 11 | MOCANU | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| SOLTZANDEH, AMIR | 16-Nov-22 | 07-Feb-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 15-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| SONDHI, JUSTIN | 09-Nov-22 | 17-May-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| SPEIS, CONSTANTINE | 24-Apr-22 | 14-Aug-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 02-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| STEWART, HORACE | 08-May-23 | 24-Jun-24 | 109/70 | BARRIENTOS | 05-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| SUBRAMANGAM, NEVIL | 08-Mar-23 | 12-Jul-24 | 60/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 09-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| SUKHOO, NICHOLAS | 17-Jul-24 | 0-APR-25 | 182(2) | MOUDGIL, S. | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
| TAM, JAMIE | 22-Dec-23 | 10-Feb-25 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 21-Feb-25 | Dismissed |
| TARI, JAMES | 22-Aug-23 | 24-Jan-25 | 144 5 A | MOUDGIL, S | 28-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| TARNAWA, MARIUSZ | 03-May-23 | 03-Jan-25 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 16-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| TAWAB, MOHAMMAD OMID | 03-Apr-23 | 10-Jul-24 | 115/100 | MOCANU | 09-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| TAYLOR, GREGORY | 26-Oct-22 | 21-Jun-24 | 144 5 | LACARIA | 02-Jul-24 | Dismissed |
| TEJINDER, NATT | 26-Jan-23 | 20-Dec-24 | 142 2 | U/K | 09-Jan-25 | Dismissed |
| TEMESGEN, MIKIYAES | 28-Dec-21 | 20-Nov-23 | 142 2 | MOCANU | 19-Dec-23 | Dismissed |
| THARMASOTHY, HARIHARAN | 19-Dec-23 | 02-Dec-24 | 182 2 | MOUDGIL, S. | 20-Dec-24 | Dismissed |
| TUTCU, MERT | 14-Jan-22 | 03-Sep-24 | 83/50 | GUADAGNOLI | 13-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| UTHAYASOORIY, JEEVAKAN | 07-Oct-23 | 23-Jan-24 | 142 2 | LACARIA | 22-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| VALAKIS, VALENTINO | 26-Mar-23 | 16-Oct-24 | 144 5 | Agent for Mocanu | 25-Oct-24 | Dismissed |
| VANTANDEEP | 29-Mar-23 | 09-May-24 | 142 1 | MOCANU | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| VELASCO, DEAN | 23-Apr-24 | 23-Apr-25 | 148(5) | MOUDGIL, S. | 07-May-25 | DAA |
| VELGADO, CARLA | 11-Nov-23 | 22-Aug-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 06-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| VIRGILIO, ASCENZO | 12-May-23 | 23-Aug-24 | 142 1 | GUADAGNOLI | 05-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| WALKER, CONNOR | 14-Apr-23 | 15-Aug-24 | 144 5 | MOCANU | 20-Aug-24 | Dismissed |
| WALSZAK, PASKAL | 07-Sep-24 | 30-Jan-24 | 65/50 | LACARIA | 29-Feb-24 | Dismissed |
| WILKINSON, GERALD | 24-Mar-23 | 19-Sep-24 | 142 2 | GUADAGNOLI | 27-Sep-24 | Dismissed |
| YOUNIS, AHSAN | 26-Apr-23 | 28-May-24 | 60/50 | LACARIA | 07-Jun-24 | Dismissed |
| YOUSIF, REEMON | 02-Sep-22 | 07-May-24 | 89/60 | LACARIA | 21-May-24 | Dismissed |
| ZEREN, ALI | 22-Jul-24 | 08-Apr-25 | 182(2) | MOUDGIL, S. | 25-Apr-25 | DAA |
Footnotes
[1] Schedule "A" lists the Appellants. In total, there were 242 appeals before me. The Schedule also sets out: (i) the offence date, (ii) the trial date, (iii) the offence pleaded to, (iv) the representative who entered the guilty plea, (v) the date the notice of appeal was filed and, (vi) the outcome of the Appeal.
[2] The scheme is not new: Nicolino Alessandro v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 40, at para. 17 (4). There, the prospective paralegal license was denied admission as a licensee on the basis that he forged notices of appeal and sent them to the Registrar to avoid recording of the conviction. I will return to this below.
[3] One notice of appeal is telling. In R. v. Esteron, Mr. Mocanu entered the plea as agent for the Defendant. The grounds of appeal are: "I INSTRUCTED THAT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT I HAD A TRIAL" [CAPS original]. This appeal was commenced by Mr. Mocanu's firm, Ticket Justice, just 9 days after he himself had entered the plea.
[4] Enumerated HTA Offences.
[5] See Schedule "A", Column 5.
[6] See: Understanding demerit points | ontario.ca.
[8] I do note that in respect of one pool of transcripts Mr. Mocanu advised that they were delivered to his old office. I was at a loss to understand why, if they were sent, he could not simply call the reporter and obtain them. No answer to this question was forthcoming.
[9] Identified as "DAA" in Schedule A.