Paolo Giancaterino

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.