Xenia Proestos

The applicant sought bail pending his appeal against conviction for selling cocaine.

The applicant argued that the trial verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge made errors in analyzing the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no merit in the appeal given the overwhelming identification evidence from undercover and surveillance officers, the recovery of marked money, and the seizure of the cell phone used to arrange the drug buys.

The accused was charged with income tax evasion.

At his second trial, he argued that he was not obligated to pay taxes because the Income Tax Act did not apply to him as a 'natural person'.

The trial judge put this defence to the jury, and the accused was acquitted.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the accused's belief that the Act did not apply to him was a mistake of law that did not constitute a defence to tax evasion.

The trial judge erred in putting this unavailable defence to the jury.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine and his sentence of 38 months' imprisonment.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the key Crown witness and that his sentence offended the parity principle and failed to account for time spent on house arrest while on bail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the witness's evidence was uncontradicted and supported by objective records.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; although the trial judge may have erred in not considering the bail conditions, the sentence remained fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record and the co-accused's cooperation with police.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of a controlled substance.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of drugs found during a warrantless search of his residence by police assisting a Children's Aid Society worker.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Collins framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter and concluding the police acted in good faith.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third component of the reasonable doubt analysis outlined in R. v. W.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly articulated the burden of proof, reviewed the evidence, and made findings of fact that were open to him, rendering the verdicts reasonable.

The respondent was acquitted of tax evasion and making false statements.

After the acquittal, he brought a free-standing Charter application for costs under s. 24(1), alleging breaches of ss. 7 and 8.

The trial judge entertained the application, denied the Crown an opportunity to lead evidence, and awarded costs against the Crown.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application after the verdict of acquittal and erred in denying the Crown the opportunity to call evidence.

The appellant and his companies were convicted of wilfully obtaining and attempting to obtain GST refunds by submitting false invoices for condominium development work.

He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and fined over $700,000.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Crown failed to prove the exact fraud amounts, raised the defence of officially induced error, and sought to introduce fresh evidence of undisclosed CRA documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the exact amount was not an essential element, the officially induced error defence was inapplicable, and the undisclosed documents would not have affected the trial's outcome.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the substantial fraud justified the penalty.

The appellant appealed his sentence for drug and gun offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate consideration to the appellant's age and status as a first offender.

The court upheld the 12-month sentence for the gun offence but converted the sentence on the hashish charge to a concurrent sentence, taking into account pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address his testimony concerning fans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence about the fans did not undermine the informant's evidence regarding the detection of marihuana odour.

The appellant appealed against his sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal against sentence as abandoned.

The appellant appealed the sentence entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentence that justified intervention and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day and probation for an offence involving a substantial amount of crack cocaine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the aggravating factor that the appellant committed the offence while serving an intermittent sentence for the same offence.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on drug trafficking charges.

Police officers responded to a 911 call about armed men and lawfully detained the respondent and his passenger in their vehicle.

After a pat-down search yielded no weapons, officers searched the vehicle and found cocaine and ecstasy in a zippered case in the glove compartment.

The trial judge found the extended vehicle search violated section 8 of the Charter as it was not reasonably necessary, and excluded the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the officers could have easily verified the respondent's innocent explanation instead of conducting the extended search.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred during the jury selection process by failing to adequately instruct the triers on the challenge for cause process and by interfering with his peremptory challenge rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the triers were not instructed on the standard of proof or the need for unanimity.

Furthermore, the trial judge's failure to pre-screen prospective jurors for personal hardship forced counsel to waste peremptory challenges.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.