Ruling directs Crown to support litigant challenging forfeiture order from foreign prison
In a case arising from a man’s conviction and sentence in the US for involvement in a US$55 million stock fraud, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to appoint counsel/amicus or to stay the matter until such appointment.
Before the appeal court, the applicant in United States v. Georgiou, 2026 ONCA 192, sought leave to appeal under s. 35 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 1985 (MLACMA). He sought to:
The applicant asked the court to terminate the forfeiture order and compel Canada’s attorney general to disclose any Canada-US cooperation in relation to the US convictions leading to the forfeiture order.
Summarily dismissing the applicant’s applications, the application judge exercised his authority under R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11, to do so in the criminal context based on the manifestly frivolous applications.
The judge said the appeal court lacked jurisdiction to strike down US orders. The judge then rejected the applicant’s argument that the US order was not final due to his pending US application to reopen his case.
The judge found that any further remedy was unattainable, given the exhaustion of the avenues of appeal that led to the US order’s issuance. The judge explained that finding otherwise would mean that a party could bring successive meritless applications to stop the enforcement of a properly made court order.
After the judge’s decision, the applicant’s pending US application ended in a dismissal. The applicant alleged that he applied to the US Supreme Court for relief.
In the present matter, the applicant applied for state-appointed counsel or amicus and for a stay until the appointment of counsel or amicus to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
To dismiss the application, the Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the three elements of the relevant test under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code, summarized in R. v. Staples, 2016 ONCA 362.
First, the appeal court saw insufficient basis to find that the applicant lacked other means, through personal funds or accessible family sources, to hire counsel privately.
According to the appeal court, while the applicant asserted a lack of resources, considering the size of the forfeiture order, and a rejection by a legal aid provider, he gave no supporting documents.
Second, the appeal court saw no arguable grounds for appeal for the purpose of assigning state-appointed counsel. The appeal court noted that the applicant repeatedly raised unfounded allegations of abuse of process in the American proceedings.
The appeal court agreed with the Crown’s argument that the applicant was collaterally attacking US judgments and Canadian rulings on the forfeiture order’s validity and enforceability.
The appeal court found no basis for the applicant’s assertion that s. 35 of the MLACMA breached ss. 8 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it only permitted appeals on legal matters.
The appeal court held that the applicant failed to provide enumerated or analogous grounds under s. 15 or an explanation for why a circumscribed right of appeal would constitute unreasonable seizures.
Third, the appeal court ruled that the applicant demonstrated an ability to advance his appeal effectively without state-appointed counsel’s assistance.
The appeal court recognized the applicant’s logistical challenges due to his incarceration in a foreign prison. Thus, the appeal court directed the Crown to give him the necessary logistical support to complete and file the materials for his motion for leave to appeal.
The appeal court acknowledged that the applicant:
The appeal court added this matter to the status court list for further management.
