Paolo Giancaterino

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 after the complainant's bank accounts were used in a scheme involving counterfeit cheques.

The complainant alleged the accused manipulated her into opening accounts and withdrawing money, while the accused denied any involvement.

Although the trial judge found the complainant credible and disbelieved the accused, the lack of independent confirmatory evidence due to an inadequate police investigation left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on five gun-related charges.

The trial judge had excluded a seized firearm and a videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding the respondent was arbitrarily detained during a pretextual traffic stop contrary to s. 9, and his right to counsel was violated under s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of a pretextual stop was a factual determination not subject to appellate review, and there was no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 under s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code after soliciting donations for new organizations while previously working as a field agent for a national taxpayer advocacy group.

Donors often assumed the new organizations were affiliated with the prior organization, and the court found that the accused failed to clearly disclose the lack of affiliation, constituting a misrepresentation by non‑disclosure and establishing the actus reus of fraud.

However, the evidence established that the accused genuinely intended to create a legitimate lobbying organization and did not subjectively intend to deceive or deprive donors or the prior organization.

The Crown therefore failed to prove the mens rea of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the Crown did not prove that the alleged fraudulent amount exceeded $5,000.

Following a jury conviction for three bank robberies committed within a short period, the court determined a fit sentence balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The offender committed the robberies while addicted to drugs and had made significant rehabilitative progress while residing at a structured addiction recovery program pending trial.

The court credited extensive pre‑sentence custody, including time spent under restrictive conditions at the rehabilitation facility.

Applying the principles of proportionality and totality, the court concluded that a lengthy penitentiary term would undermine the offender’s rehabilitation prospects.

A custodial sentence followed by the maximum probationary period at the recovery program was imposed.

The Crown brought an application seeking admission of similar fact evidence across three robbery counts in a jury trial to establish identity.

The robberies occurred within eleven days at three banks located within one kilometre of each other and involved similar methods, including handwritten notes containing distinctive phrases such as “no ink”, brief interactions with tellers, and similar clothing and demeanour.

The court applied the two‑stage similar fact evidence test, finding a high degree of similarity rendering coincidence objectively improbable.

Evidence linking the accused to the acts included DNA found on clothing recovered after the third robbery and anticipated identification evidence from surveillance video.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its minimal prejudicial effect and permitted the jury to consider the evidence on each count when determining guilt on the others.

The respondent sued the Attorney General of Canada for false imprisonment after being held in custody at a federal penitentiary pursuant to an order to produce.

The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by statutory immunity, but the motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment, holding that correctional authorities are immune from civil liability under section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act and section 8 of the Public Authorities Protection Act when acting in good faith in accordance with a court order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the ownership of $9,000 in a joint bank account held by the deceased and his niece, the respondent.

The trial judge found that the deceased intended to gift the balance of the account to the respondent through survivorship, thereby rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the correct legal test was applied.