Renna Weinberg

The applicant sought an exemption from a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on October 19, 2023, pursuant to section 490.04 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that since the original SOIRA order was made by the Ontario Court of Justice, the application for exemption must be brought in that court, not the Superior Court of Justice.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, possession of proceeds of crime, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The charges arose from his role as CEO of a subsidiary company that contracted IT professionals for a bank project.

The contractors experienced delayed and unpaid invoices, which the Crown alleged the accused facilitated by lying about the reasons for the delays.

The court found that the accused reasonably relied on the parent company's CFO and operations team for financial matters and did not have actual knowledge of, nor was he wilfully blind to, the fraud perpetrated by the CFO.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Joseph Rassi pleaded guilty to two counts of Fraud over $5,000.00.

The Crown sought three years' imprisonment, a five-year s. 380.2 Criminal Code order, and $70,000.00 restitution.

Rassi sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the large-scale nature and serious consequences of the fraud, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

Despite mitigating factors like Rassi's addiction and lack of prior record, and his not being the scheme's architect, actual custody was deemed necessary.

The court imposed a two-year concurrent imprisonment sentence, a no-contact order with victims, and a restitution order of $70,000.00.

A s. 380.2 prohibition order was declined as Rassi was not in a position of trust.

Following his conviction for 12 counts of fraud over $5000 related to a currency trading Ponzi scheme, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged abuse of process.

The accused argued there was improper coordination between the Crown, police, and civil counsel representing the defrauded investors.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The court held there was no evidence of improper coordination, that the disclosure of the Crown brief to civil litigants followed the proper Wagg screening process, and that there was no evidence Crown counsel co-authored an article with civil counsel.

The defendant, Steven Nowack, facing 13 counts of fraud, brought a directed verdict motion at the close of the Crown's case, arguing insufficient evidence for conviction on four counts.

The Crown alleged Nowack made misrepresentations to investors, diverted funds, and failed to provide an accounting, resulting in approximately $15 million in losses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a guilty verdict on all challenged counts, including those related to Dr. Joseph Greenberg, Minton Trading Limited, Sinomec Finance Limited, and Lee Sui Fun.

The court emphasized that the Crown is not required to prove that misrepresentations were material to the losses, only that they placed the victim's economic interests at risk, and that a direct personal nexus between the fraudster and victim is not necessary.

The offender was convicted of twelve counts of fraud over $5000 for operating a large-scale Ponzi scheme disguised as a currency trading business.

He defrauded investors of approximately $15.6 million by misrepresenting his trading success, diverting funds for personal use, and using new investor money to pay earlier investors.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years in prison, ordered restitution of $14.4 million, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $15.6 million, and issued a lifetime prohibition order preventing him from having authority over the money or property of others.

The accused, convicted of 12 counts of fraud in a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme, brought a motion alleging the Crown failed to make timely disclosure and failed to preserve evidence, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found that while there were some minor oversights in disclosure, they did not impact the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.

The court also found no duty on the police to preserve irrelevant emails and noted a lack of due diligence by the accused in requesting disclosure.

The disclosure application was dismissed.

Steven Nowack, convicted of 12 counts of fraud over $19 million, applied for bail pending post-conviction motions and sentencing.

His previous bail was cancelled due to breaches and contempt findings.

Nowack argued for bail based on alleged violations of a court order regarding hospital transport and s. 7 Charter rights due to mistreatment by authorities and reckless driving.

The court found no violation of its order, deeming the delay in hospital transport reasonable given staffing issues and an acute medical emergency involving another prisoner.

The court also found no s. 7 Charter violation, dismissing Nowack's claims of abusive treatment and reckless driving as exaggerated and lacking credibility, particularly after reviewing video evidence.

The application for bail was dismissed, and the detention order remained in place, emphasizing the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the serious nature of the crime and Nowack's history of non-compliance with court orders.

Rossana Lim and her daughter Shannon Lim brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(b) (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The accused were charged with fraud-related offences and faced a trial date set for January 8, 2018, approximately 43 months and 9 days after the initial charge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the delay exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, it was justified by defence delay, case complexity, and the transitional exceptional circumstance of good faith plea negotiations conducted under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice in a judicial proceeding by threatening to use his vote, position and influence as a jury member to cause a hung jury irrespective of the evidence at trial.

The accused sent communications to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Sheriff's office, and a newspaper reporter expressing his intention to deliberately vote to hang any jury on which he served.

The court found that the jury selection process constitutes a judicial proceeding under the Criminal Code.

However, the court acquitted the accused, finding that his actions constituted mere threats to obstruct justice rather than an attempt to do so, as he did not bring his materials to court and had no contact with potential jurors.

The court found the accused was attempting to avoid jury duty rather than to obstruct justice.