Episode
His Majesty the King in Right of Canada v. Damodar Arapakota (42061)
- Published
- Apr 17, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 4337
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/episodes/his-majesty-the-king-in-right-of-canada-v-damodar-arapakota-42061/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/his-majesty-the-king-in-right-of-canada-v-damodar-arapakota-42061.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The respondent, Damodar Arapakota, was charged with bribing a foreign public official, contrary to s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. The Crown alleged that the respondent bribed an official with the government of Botswana by paying for the official’s family vacation in Orlando, Florida, in return for which the respondent received letters confirming the government of Botswana’s intention to award a contract to his company and confirming the value of the prospective contract. The trial judge found that the respondent conferred a material benefit on the official, but that the benefit was not consideration for the letters that the official later provided. She further found that the letters did not rise to the level of a material or tangible economic advantage sufficient to trigger liability under s. 3(1)(a). As a result, she acquitted the respondent. The Crown appealed the acquittal. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal finding that while the trial judge misinterpreted one of the elements of the offence at s. 3(1)(a), this error had no impact on the proper disposition of the case. Justice Monahan, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. He found that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of s. 3(1)(a), which had a material impact on the verdict. Argued Date 2026-04-16 Keywords Criminal law — Bribing a foreign public official — Elements of offence — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34 — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s legal error did not affect the verdict. Notes (Ontario)…