Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-90000067-00MO
Date: 2025-03-07
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
George Georgiou

Appearances:

• H. Graham, for the Crown
• George Georgiou, self-represented

Heard: 2025-01-29
Judge: S.A.Q. Akhtar

Factual Background and Overview

Background Facts

[1] George Georgiou was convicted in the United States of America in 2012 for the offences of conspiracy and fraud offences. He is currently serving a sentence of 25 years in prison.

[2] As part of his sentence, the U.S. court imposed a forfeiture order in the amount of $26,000,000 – which included the restraint of $9.2 million (the “Restraint Order”) held in an Ontario Royal Bank of Canada account (the “RBC Funds”). A final forfeiture order was issued in June 2018 (the “Final Forfeiture Order”).

[3] Mr. Georgiou unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and sentence. He launched successive motions and claims arguing for a new trial and alleging an abuse of process by the authorities in relation to withholding evidence. In August 2021, Mr. Georgiou brought a motion for a writ of audita querela challenging the final order. He alleged there was a conspiracy between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement and prosecution services. The court denied his motion and indicated that his claims of misconduct and the issue of forfeiture will “not be analyzed again”.

[4] Notwithstanding these comments, Mr. Georgiou filed a motion for the reconsideration of the audita querela motion. The court’s decision in that matter remains outstanding.

[5] In September 2012, the U.S. requested Canada’s help to restrain the RBC Funds. On 24 September 2012, Forestell J. authorised entering the Restraint Order as a formal judgment of the court (“the RO”). Mr. Georgiou challenged the RO and the Attorney General of Canada moved for summary dismissal, arguing Mr. Georgiou’s motion was frivolous. On 24 April 2017, Justice Molloy granted the Crown’s application.

[6] Mr. Georgiou appealed but was again unsuccessful: the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 29 March 2018 and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal.

[7] In November 2020, U.S. authorities made a treaty request for Canada’s assistance in executing the U.S. Final Forfeiture Order (the FFO) against the restrained RBC Funds. On April 1, 2021, the FFO was filed and entered as a judgment of this Court, rendering it enforceable in Canada under s. 9.4(3) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (the “Act”), subject to satisfying the notice requirement in s. 9.4(8) of the Act.

[8] By order of Justice Davies on 10 May 2021, and in accordance with s. 9.4(8)(a) of the Act, notice was given to parties who may wish to claim an interest in the RBC Funds.

[9] On 24 June 2021, Mr. Georgiou’s mother, Loukia Georgiou, filed an application asserting an interest. Ms. Georgiou sought to adjourn her application to await the outcome of Mr. Georgiou’s audita querela reconsideration motion in the U.S. courts. In dismissing Ms. Georgiou’s adjournment application, Justice Roberts noted:

First, the forfeiture order is final and all appeals in relation to it have been exhausted. In addition, a motion to stay the forfeiture order has been dismissed by United States District Court. Second, there does not appear to be any end to the possible attacks by George Georgiou on the forfeiture order. More importantly, there is no suggestion that the current attack or any possible attack has merit. George Georgiou has already tried to attack the forfeiture order with an [audita querela] application which was dismissed. I understand that this is his second attempt to attack the forfeiture order with an [audita querela] application.

See: R. v. Georgiou, [2022] O.J. No. 6207, at paras. 6-7.

[10] On 3 January 2023, Justice Goldstein dismissed Ms. Georgiou’s application asserting an interest in the RBC Funds. He found that “Loukia is simply a straw woman for her son,” and that she had asserted an interest on his behalf in order to thwart the execution of the forfeiture order. Justice Goldstein noted that “[Mr. Georgiou and his mother] rely on documents that are, at best, suspicious, and at worst forgeries…Quite frankly, there is a reasonable suspicion that these are false documents and constitute an attempted fraud on the court”: see R. v. Georgiou, 2023 ONSC 64, para 5.

[11] The Court of Appeal refused Ms. Georgiou’s application for leave to appeal: see Canada (Attorney General) v. Georgiou, 2023 ONCA 495.

[12] On 21 March 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada also refused leave to appeal, removing any further legal impediments in executing the U.S. Final Forfeiture Order: Canada (A.G.) v. Georgiou, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 526.

Positions of the Parties

[13] Mr. Georgiou applies to stay the execution of FFO and asks that this court terminates it. He also seeks an order for production of disclosure from the Attorney General of Canada regarding disclosure of any co-operation that took place with the U.S. prosecution authorities in relation to his U.S. convictions.

[14] Mr. Georgiou argues that there are continuing litigation proceedings ongoing in the U.S. which allege corruption in the U.S. prosecution process and that the Canadian law enforcement authorities were also complicit. He contends that this cross-border plot invokes an abuse of process in Canadian law which requires a stay of proceedings until the U.S. litigation is exhausted.

[15] In response, the Crown submits that the applicant’s claims are not justiciable in Canada and are simply a collateral attack on American judgments. It further argues that the claims are a collateral attack on Canadian court rulings that have ruled on the validity and enforceability of the forfeiture order. The Crown submits there is no evidence to support any of the applicant’s claims. As a result, the Crown asks for Mr. Georgiou’s application to be summarily dismissed.

Legal Principles

[16] In R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, 480 D.L.R. (4th) 577, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that judges have the power to summarily dismiss applications made in the criminal context if those applications are manifestly frivolous.

[17] The court recognised that dismissing unmeritorious applications is beneficial for the administration of justice as it helps ensure that trials occur within a reasonable time. However, the court also noted that this efficiency had to be balanced with the principle of trial fairness which permits accused persons to make full answer and defence.

[18] The court held that trial judges should err on the side of caution when asked to dismiss an application summarily.

[19] In the criminal context, the threshold for summary dismissal is whether the application is “manifestly frivolous”. The moving party bears the burden of establishing that this threshold has been met.

[20] At paras. 67-69, the court in Haevischer explained:

The “frivolous” part of the standard weeds out those applications that will necessarily fail. This Court has previously stated that the “‘not frivolous’ test is widely recognized as being a very low bar” (R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, para 20). Having reviewed the case law on the “not frivolous” threshold, inevitability or necessity of failure is the key characteristic of a “frivolous” application.

Aside from the inevitability or necessity of failure, the “frivolous” standard has captured a compendium of other phrases. It is because it will necessarily fail that a frivolous application has also been described as “not arguable” and as “having no basis upon which it could succeed”. Similarly, saying an application is “doomed to failure” connotes inevitability and is just another way of saying an application is “frivolous” [citations omitted].

However, I add the word “manifestly” to capture the idea that the frivolous nature of the application should be obvious. “Manifestly” is defined as “as is manifest; evidently, unmistakably, openly”, and “manifest” is defined as “[c]learly revealed to the eye, mind, or judgement; open to view or comprehension; obvious” (Oxford English Dictionary (online)). Just like the civil standard for striking a claim requires that it be “plain and obvious” that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (or, in French, “évident et manifeste”), the addition of the word “manifestly” adds another layer to the “frivolous” standard and helpfully indicates that a summary dismissal motion should be based on that which is clearly revealed.

[21] The court concluded, at para. 71:

Thus, the “manifestly frivolous” standard, which connotes the obvious necessity of failure, is the appropriate threshold for the summary dismissal of applications made in the criminal law context. If the frivolous nature of the application is not manifest or obvious on the face of the record, then the application should not be summarily dismissed and should instead be addressed on its merits.

[22] In Haevischer, at para. 104, the court also provided guidance to motion judges on how to balance the right to a fair trial and court resources:

In exercising their discretion concerning whether to hear the summary dismissal motion, judges must consider the context and consequences associated with the underlying application, including whether it is amenable to summary disposition and how the applicant’s fair trial rights will be affected by a summary dismissal hearing. Additionally, judges must consider whether holding a summary dismissal hearing will be an effective use of court time or if it will actually create delay.

Analysis

The Court Has No Jurisdiction Over the U.S. Orders

[23] The first ground of Mr. Georgiou’s application may be dealt with briefly. This court has no jurisdiction to strike down orders made in the U.S. and the application to do so is manifestly frivolous and, as a result, dismissed summarily: Haevischer, at para. 85.

The Conviction and Order in the United States is Final

[24] Under s. 9.4(5) of the Act, the Attorney General must be satisfied of the following conditions before filing a final order:

(a) the person has been convicted of an offence within the jurisdiction of the state or entity;
(b) the offence would be an indictable offence if it were committed in Canada; and
(c) the conviction and the order are not subject to further appeal.

[25] There is no dispute that the first two limbs of the subsection are satisfied. The applicant argues that since there is ongoing litigation regarding the conduct of the U.S. and Canadian prosecutions, the third limb remains unfulfilled and therefore the forfeiture order cannot be valid.

[26] I disagree.

[27] The third condition applies to the conviction that resulted in the forfeiture order. The applicant was convicted of the substantive fraud and conspiracy offences. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison—the sentence that he is currently serving—with the $26 million forfeiture being imposed. His conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal: United States v. Georgiou 777 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015). An application for review was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[28] The applicant then continued to launch applications to set aside his conviction and sentence, all of which were criticised as being duplicative of issues already decided and resurrecting previously litigated matters: United States v. Georgiou, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55245, 2021 WL 1122630, at PDF p. 3 (E.D. Pa. March 23, 2021).

[29] The U.S. court hearings continued.

[30] As previously described, in August 2021, the applicant filed a motion for a writ of audita querela arguing that his case should be reopened on the basis of new evidence supporting similar claims to those raised in this hearing. The court dismissed the application and noted that the bulk of the arguments had already been litigated and would not be considered again. The court went on to consider two remaining motions: (1) an allegation of bias against the judge hearing the contested motion, and (2) a claim that the forfeiture of monies was inappropriate because his application was substantive rather than procedural. The court rejected both motions noting that the applicant had received “millions in proceeds” from his fraudulent scheme. Notwithstanding this decision, the applicant filed his motion to reconsider the audita querela motion.

[31] The applicant argues that this new motion, which remains to be determined in the U.S. courts, means that there has not been a final disposition of his conviction. Accordingly, the FFO must be suspended or stayed.

[32] I cannot agree with this contention.

[33] The “conviction and order” mentioned in s. 9.4(5)(c) refers to the original conviction recorded against the applicant in 2012 (for which his funds were forfeited) and the appeals that followed. This was the conviction that led to the U.S. requesting the Canadian funds, and the filing of the FFO in this court. The applicant sought to set aside this order. As noted, Molloy J. summarily dismissed his application on 24 April 2017 and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 29 March 2018. An application for leave to appeal that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[34] The litigation did not end there. On 24 June 2021, the applicant’s mother, Loukia Georgiou, applied to this court asserting an interest in the RBC funds and brought an additional motion to adjourn her application pending the outcome of the U.S. audita querela litigation. Roberts J. dismissed her application holding that the forfeiture order “is final and all appeals in relation to it have been exhausted”. Roberts J. also held that the application was an attack on the forfeiture order by the applicant himself.

[35] Goldstein J. reached the same conclusion when he dismissed Loukia Georgiou’s substantive application claiming an interest in the RBC funds. He made the following observation:

I note that the application also rests on this court accepting the validity of certain documents that raise significant red flags. I agree with the Attorney General that these documents are highly suspicious. I also agree that there are badges of fraud associated with the payment that suggest that it may have been made in anticipation of possible forfeiture in the United States. The totality of the evidence suggests that Loukia is simply a straw woman for her son. I find that she has not met her onus of showing that she has a valid interest in the funds. I also find that there is a strong inference that can be drawn that she has asserted an interest for the specific purpose of avoiding forfeiture.

[36] In other words, the courts in this jurisdiction have ruled on the finality of any challenge to the FFO. The outstanding U.S. litigation does not affect this conclusion or the orders made by the courts in Ontario regarding its enforcement.

[37] The avenues of appeal that led to the U.S. Order being issued have been exhausted and no further remedy can be “reached”: Haevischer, at para. 85.

[38] If I concluded otherwise, a party could simply launch application after application devoid of any merit to halt the enforcement of a properly made court order. This may well be what is found to be the reality in this case.

[39] I find the applicant’s application to be manifestly frivolous. Accordingly, I grant the Attorney General of Canada’s request that Mr. Georgiou’s application be summarily dismissed.

The Allegations of Misconduct are Baseless

[40] I would also add that the applicant’s accusations targeting members of the judiciary and prosecutorial authorities are baseless and are not supported by any evidence other than the applicant’s allegations. Although Haevischer indicated that facts alleged by an applicant must be assumed to be true, it also made clear that the application should explain its factual foundation and point towards anticipated evidence that could establish the alleged facts. However, his accusations of a conspiracy between the American and Canadian prosecutorial authorities have no evidentiary basis. Specifically, they are allegations based solely on speculation and hypotheses in the mind of Mr. Georgiou. As such, they are captured by Haevischer’s description of manifestly frivolous.

[41] In the same vein, I find the applicant’s attempt for disclosure related to any potential joint co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General in Canada is simply a fishing expedition devoid of any evidence which might yield a factual basis. Accordingly, that application is also summarily dismissed.

S.A.Q. Akhtar
Released: 7 March 2025

Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: CR-24-90000067-00MO
Date: 2025-03-07
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
George Georgiou

Reasons for Judgment
S.A.Q. Akhtar