Paul Attia

The self-represented accused, facing fraud charges for allegedly holding himself out as a lawyer and misappropriating funds, brought an application for further first-party disclosure from the Crown and third-party records from his former employers, the police, and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The court reviewed the requests under the Stinchcombe and O'Connor frameworks.

The court ordered the production of certain invoices and payments to establish the business relationship between the accused and the law firms, and ordered the Crown to provide witness lists and criminal records.

Requests for client files were denied due to solicitor-client privilege, and the request for Law Society records was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The accused, charged with fraud-related offences, brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants executed at his home and business.

He sought leave to cross-examine the police officer who swore the Information to Obtain (ITO), alleging material misrepresentations.

The court denied leave, finding no evidentiary basis to support the alleged misrepresentations and concluding that cross-examination would not elicit testimony tending to discredit the preconditions for the warrants.

The Garofoli application was dismissed, as the court found ample support in the ITO for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of an apartment where both were guests.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the court found the core allegations corroborated by a witness and the accused's own admissions of uninvited touching.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of a relative's apartment.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant initiated contact and he only pinched her bottom.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found the testimony of the complainant and an eyewitness reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.