 |
| John L. Hill |
On May 12, 2021, he sped his Lamborghini to 112 kilometres an hour in a 40 kilometre per hour zone while trying to pass a streetcar in Toronto. The crash involving the streetcar and a parked vehicle caused minor injuries to the driver but catastrophic injuries to his passenger, Stefanie Backer. Georgopoulos did not attempt to brake during the incident. Backer, a 31-year-old business assistant, had worked as a paramedic for eight years before working for Georgopoulos. She was sitting in the front seat at the time of the crash. Her career was ended because of it.
Backer’s injuries were horrific: she suffered extensive trauma to her knees, pelvis, back, neck, sternum, wrists and right shoulder, as well as a dissected carotid artery. Her brain tissue was exposed from the impact of the crash, and glass from the shattered windshield was wedged into her brain and chest. While receiving emergency medical care, she experienced a hemorrhagic stroke, which led to a surgeon shaving brain tissue from her frontal lobe to control the bleeding. Backer was placed in an induced coma for 15 days and endured multiple brain seizures. She now lives with a permanent seizure disorder. She has experienced dramatic changes to her personality and is disfigured.
Golden Sikorka: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
At trial, Georgopoulos submitted positive letters of support. During sentencing, the judge dismissed his good character, noting that it is often individuals of otherwise good character who engage in reckless driving. Referencing R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, the main considerations for sentencing were denunciation and general deterrence. The court sentenced him to a two and a half years’ imprisonment and a six-year driving prohibition.
On appeal, Georgopoulos argued that the sentencing judge erred by comparing his conduct to the reckless discharge of a firearm, improperly treating his trial evidence as aggravating, overemphasizing Criminal Code amendments that increased penalties, failing to give adequate weight to rehabilitation and restraint and refusing to credit the 41 months of driving prohibition he had already served while on bail (R. v. Georgopoulos, 2026 ONCA 27).
The Court of Appeal dismissed most of these arguments, noting that the firearm analogy is a well-established judicial comparison used to demonstrate the risks of reckless driving (R. v. Ramage, 2010 ONCA 488).
The Appeal Court also determined that the trial judge correctly denied the mitigating benefit of a guilty plea rather than treating the case as an aggravating factor. Georgopoulos argued that he did not contest most of the facts at trial and presented two Charter arguments. He contended that the trial should be treated as similar to a guilty plea and that the mitigation typically granted for guilty pleas should apply.
The Appeal Court further held that reliance on Parliament’s increased maximum penalties appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence. A court should generally impose higher sentences than those imposed in cases that preceded an increase in the maximum sentence. This respects Parliament’s wishes (R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9).
The court also held that the two-and-a-half-year custodial sentence was appropriate, which made a conditional sentence unavailable. There was nothing in the trial judge’s reasons to suggest that imposing a penalty exceeding two years was merely a tactic to avoid considering a conditional sentence.
However, the court found a legal error in ordering the driving ban to take effect upon the appellant’s release from prison. According to the Criminal Code, such bans must take effect when they are imposed, not upon release. The court therefore corrected the ban to begin on the sentencing date (Oct. 29, 2024) but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.