Xenia Proestos

The applicant sought a review of a detention order pending his retrial for terrorist-related offences.

The bail judge had dismissed his application on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The reviewing judge found the bail judge erred by misapprehending a risk assessment, failing to address the applicant's present ideology, and considering irrelevant factors regarding the proposed sureties.

Fresh evidence regarding trial delay, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the applicant's rehabilitation was admitted.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was released on strict bail conditions including house arrest, electronic monitoring, and four sureties.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in 2008.

Over 11 years later, he was arrested in the United States for immigration violations and sought an extension of time to appeal his Canadian conviction, arguing his plea was uninformed regarding immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the 11-year delay excessive, the proposed ground of appeal weak, and that the applicant failed to establish that the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The appellant appealed his convictions for failing to file income tax returns, advancing pseudolegal arguments that he was not a 'person' under the Income Tax Act and that paying taxes is voluntary.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arguments frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit.

The court also reprimanded the appellant's counsel for advancing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) theories, noting it was an abuse of the court's process and a breach of professional obligations.

The appellants were convicted of importing cocaine after returning from vacation in St. Lucia with 1.4 kilograms of cocaine each.

They appealed their convictions on the basis that the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof regarding the defence of duress and erroneously required corroboration of the evidence.

The appellants argued duress was the only defence at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made a misstatement regarding the burden of proof, this was a simple error that did not affect the outcome when the reasons were read as a whole.

The defence failed because the trial judge did not believe the evidence of the testifying appellant and found no reasonable doubt regarding the threats and assaults, and further found that the appellants had a safe avenue of escape once within Canadian jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions by judge alone on three charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, and ketamine.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the appellant had the requisite knowledge and control of the drugs found in an apartment.

The appellant challenged the credibility of police officers' testimony regarding surveillance observations and the trial judge's reliance on certain facts.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted by jury of attempting to knowingly participate in or contribute to the activities of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group, and counselling an undercover police officer to do the same.

The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences of five years on each count, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 7.5 months with credit for presentence custody.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the conviction grounds and upholding the sentence as fit and appropriate for terrorist offences.

The accused appealed his fraud conviction, arguing that the trial judge wrongly admitted non-expert opinion evidence.

The Court held that the appellate court properly applied the curative proviso even though it was not explicitly named in the Crown's submissions, because the substance of the point was argued.

It concluded no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on charges of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

The evidence included a three-day surveillance of a residence in Pickering, culminating in the execution of a search warrant that yielded significant quantities of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, cutting agent, and a replica firearm from a basement bedroom nightstand, as well as cocaine from a Mercedes registered to the accused.

The defence challenged committal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish constructive possession of either the drugs in the residence or the vehicle.

The court found that while the accused had a clear connection to the residence and was the registered owner of the vehicle, the evidence did not establish knowledge of or control over the drugs.

The court rejected the Crown's inferences as speculative and unsupported by an adequate evidentiary foundation, particularly the process of elimination argument regarding bedroom occupancy.

The accused was discharged on all counts.

The offender was convicted of taking two individuals hostage in Somalia for 15 months.

He acted as the translator and negotiator for the hostage-takers, demanding a ransom and threatening to kill the hostages.

The hostages were held in deplorable conditions and one was repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 15 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody on a 2:1 basis.

The appellant, a tax return preparer, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for filing false claims of charitable donations on behalf of his clients to a registered charity called Tractors for Daily Bread.

The appellant claimed he believed the donations were valid and had relied on the charity's director to verify them.

He was sentenced to 30 months in custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of non-expert opinion evidence from a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency investigator, the trial judge's instruction on mens rea, and the instruction on prior inconsistent statements.

The majority dismissed the conviction appeal and sentence appeal, while the dissent would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, and possession of stolen property.

He appealed on the basis that evidence obtained during execution of a search warrant at his residence should have been excluded, arguing the reviewing justice erred in considering the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the credibility and reliability of three confidential informants using the Debot criteria and that reasonable grounds existed to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the residence.

The appellant was convicted of significant fraud involving the preparation of fraudulent tax returns for 241 taxpayers claiming non-existent business losses to obtain tax refunds from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The fraud resulted in wrongful federal tax refunds exceeding $2.7 million, with the appellant receiving over $149,000 for his role.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, raising numerous grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no errors in the trial judge's handling of search warrant issues, Charter rights claims, jury charge, or sentencing.

Appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine and her sentence of three years imprisonment.

The Crown's case established all essential elements of importing beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant's sole defence was duress, which the jury rejected.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that seeking assistance from Canadian Border Services Agency officers at the airport constituted a safe avenue of escape, contending that the importing offence was complete upon entry into Canada.

The Court of Appeal held that while importing may be legally complete upon entry, it is not factually complete until the contraband and its carrier clear customs.

Accordingly, assistance from domestic authorities remained available as a potential safe avenue of escape.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

On the sentencing appeal, the appellant sought a six-month reduction due to an unlawful strip search conducted by the RCMP.

While the trial judge erred in her analysis of the Charter breach's seriousness and in treating sentencing ranges as fixed, these errors did not impact the sentence imposed, which was fit.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with hostage taking in relation to the kidnapping of Amanda Lindhout and Nigel Brennan in Somalia.

The accused admitted to acting as the negotiator and translator for the hostage takers but raised the common law defence of duress, claiming he was forced to participate under threat of death or bodily harm.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable, relying on intercepted communications and admissions made to an undercover officer that he participated for a share of the ransom money.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting under duress, and he was found guilty as a party to the offence.

The accused brought a motion to adjourn his criminal trial pending the completion of an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding a decision under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act that refused further disclosure on national security grounds.

The court noted that the criminal proceeding had been ongoing for 27 months and an adjournment would push the trial beyond the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

Finding that the Federal Court judge had already concluded the non-disclosed information would not materially affect the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, the court dismissed the motion to adjourn, prioritizing the public interest in having the trial proceed on the merits without undue delay.

The applicant, charged with taking Amanda Lindhout hostage in Somalia, brought a Garofoli application to exclude wiretap evidence obtained by the RCMP.

The court held that the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in phone calls demanding a ransom from the Canadian government.

Although some interceptions were made under an unconstitutional emergency wiretap provision or without prior authorization, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police acted in good faith and the breaches were not serious.

The court also upheld the validity of the various wiretap authorizations on the amplified record.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Appeals from conviction and sentence in a complex fraud case involving a scheme to divert millions of dollars from the Canadian Revenue Agency.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 following a four-month jury trial.

The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds including delay, issue estoppel, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.

The Crown appealed the quantum of the fine in lieu of forfeiture imposed on one appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, but granted leave to appeal on the sentencing issues.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The appellant was arrested during a traffic stop on Highway 401 when police discovered cocaine and marijuana in the vehicle.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony that the drugs belonged to another passenger and convicted him based on circumstantial evidence and credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment, misapprehension of evidence, or the reasonableness of the verdict.

The respondents were charged with tax offences.

During the trial, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code.

The respondents subsequently sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter for alleged prosecutorial negligence and Charter breaches.

The Summary Conviction Court judge held he retained jurisdiction to hear the costs application, which was upheld on certiorari by the Superior Court.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that once the Crown exercises its discretion to stay proceedings, the trial judge becomes functus and lacks jurisdiction to entertain a Charter costs application.

The appellant was convicted of importing and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after customs officials found 1.2 kilograms of cocaine wrapped in his t-shirt in a truck's fuse box.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge made several errors in assessing his credibility, including taking improper judicial notice, misapprehending evidence, and reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence and any alleged errors were peripheral to the core reasoning.

An application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed for failing the Palmer test.