Tyendinaga lawyer charged with sex assault appears in court
July 10, 2025
When a lawyer is accused of a serious crime in his hometown, things become complicated.
This was evident when Gregory Castellano, a Tyendinaga-based lawyer accused of sexual assault, appeared in Napanee’s Ontario Court of Justice on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, for a case management hearing. Castellano, who is currently suspended from practising, has been a lawyer in the Quinte area since 1998 and has argued many cases in the court where he now finds himself accused of serious charges. Thus, many local court personnel, most notably Justice Geoffrey Griffin and the Napanee Crown Attorney's office, have worked with and against Castellano over the years, creating a possible conflict of interest.
To this end, the Crown Attorney’s office from Brockville, Ontario, took over the case against Castellano. Now, however, the court has learned that Castellano is serving as his own defence for the time being, leading to further complications.
At the beginning of the video case management hearing before Justice Griffin, Kingston lawyer Matthew Hodgson appeared, stating that he had spoken with Castellano on Monday, July 7, 2025.
“He cannot complete his retainer,” Hodgson explained and asked that he be removed from Castellano’s defence.
Castellano was online but did not turn on his video for the appearance. He did not object to Hodgson being removed as counsel. When asked if he would be in a position to retain other counsel, Castellano stated, “Not at this point, maybe down the road, but not at this juncture.”
Next, the discussion turned to a 486 application made earlier by the Crown. “The 486 was a little problematic because Mr. Castellano was quite unhappy about that particular 486,” Griffin noted.
According to section 486 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CC), “Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but the presiding judge or justice may, on application of the prosecutor or a witness or on his or her own motion, order the exclusion of all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, or order that the witness testify behind a screen or other device that would allow the witness not to be seen by members of the public.”
Griffin asked Crown Attorney Alan D. Findlay for his thoughts on this subject.
“We're concerned, Your Honour, about the continuing delay. It's almost a year old now. Obviously, he does need counsel, whether it's 486 or otherwise,” Findlay asserted.
Griffin told Castellano that he was going to appoint another attorney to do the cross-examination of his accuser and asked if he understood.
“I understand that the Crown has the option to bring an application in that regard. So I think we should set a date for that,” Castellano answered, adding, “I intend to bring an application under Section 276 so those can both be held at the same time.”
A 276 application is a formal request made by the accused to the court to introduce evidence or ask questions about the complainant’s sexual history. Section 276 of the Criminal Code is often referred to as part of the “rape shield” provisions. It limits the ability of an accused person to introduce evidence about a complainant’s prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial. The purpose is to protect complainants from being discredited based on their sexual history and to ensure trials focus on relevant facts, not prejudicial or stereotypical reasoning (e.g., "they consented before, so they must have consented this time").
Griffin answered that they should hear the 486 application on the appointment of Counsel first, “and then go on from there.”
Castellano has elected to have a trial in Superior Court before a jury. Griffin noted that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing of the case, “And I told Mr. Castellano, because he objected to my involvement, that we would get another judge to deal with this preliminary hearing.”
Castellano indicated that the estimated time needed for a preliminary hearing would be two days. The Crown confirmed two to three days would need to be scheduled for a preliminary hearing.
Griffin indicated that they should then proceed with the Crown’s 486 application to expedite matters and initiate the scheduling of the preliminary hearing.
“You would like to object to the 486, yes?” Griffin asked Castellano.
Castellano agreed that he would.
“Okay, so I'm going to deal with that,” Griffin stated. “When can you come and argue it, sir?”
Castellano said he was flexible and left the timing up to the Crown and the court.
Griffin said, “The sooner, the better,” and indicated it would only take an hour. The court settled on a date for that hearing in early August 2025.
Griffin agreed to the date, saying, on that day, “We'll deal with the issue of whether counsel should be appointed to conduct the cross-examination of the complainant, and then I would hope to move on to setting a date for the preliminary hearing on that day.”
“It's my position that Your Honour should not hear the 486 application,” Castellano argued.
Griffin dismissed this, “Yeah, okay, anyway, two o'clock that day, thanks… We’ll see you then, Mr. Castellano.”
In November 2024, Quinteist and Kingstonist became aware that the Law Society of Ontario was seeking to suspend Gregory Edward Brant Castellano’s licence to practise law. In a notice of motion dated October 30, 2024, the Law Society said it had "reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or the public interest in the administration of justice if the order is not made."
In 2024, the Law Society commenced seven investigations into Castellano’s conduct, four of which were based on client complaints. Their investigations provided more detail.
On June 17, 2024, the Ontario Provincial Police received a report that Castellano had sexually assaulted a woman two days earlier, on June 15, 2024. On June 18, 2024, the Law Society received the same complaint. The complainant is neither a past nor a current client of Castellano.
Castellano was arrested on July 18, 2024, according to police. He was released on an undertaking with conditions and a first court appearance date of August 13, 2024. On August 9, 2024, information was sworn detailing the criminal charges as:
- sexual assault,
- uttering threats to cause bodily harm,
- sexual assault causing bodily harm, and
- administering a noxious substance.
Castellano did not attend his first court appearance on August 13, 2024. He testified that this was due to a misunderstanding with counsel. On August 15, 2024, he was criminally charged with failing to appear in court.
The tribunal noted that Castellano did not report either the sexual assault charges or the failure to attend charge to the Law Society.
The investigator stated that, on July 18, 2024, police obtained a search warrant for Castellano’s home and cottage. They seized cell phones, computers, electronic devices, and other evidence of the alleged offences. Castellano testified that he stored all his client files on his computer and was without them after that seizure and still was at the time of the tribunal hearing.
Police obtained medical records from the hospital where a sexual assault kit was completed on the woman in June and upon her further attendance in July 2024, for issues related to the alleged assault. Along with details of the alleged assault, the investigator said the medical records included the presence of a puncture mark on the woman’s back and the presence of an anesthetic drug in her system.
The tribunal noted that Castellano testified that he would vigorously defend against these allegations, but he declined to testify about his defence so as not to prejudice his criminal trial.
They stated, “Having earlier found that there was a serious risk of harm to the public interest if an interlocutory order was not made, the panel invited submissions on possible restrictions from the parties – The Law Society provided submissions – The Lawyer did not respond – The panel concluded that their findings of lack of integrity and untruthfulness necessitated a suspension – The Lawyer was suspended on an interlocutory basis.”
They based this finding “on the criminal charges of sexual assault of an Indigenous woman, which are supported by some forensic evidence; Mr. Castellano’s failure to protect client information in favour of himself, which was admitted; and to some extent, his failure to co-operate, which was also admitted. Each of these allegations, if proven at a merits hearing, would invite licence revocation or suspension as a penalty.”
An interlocutory suspension is an interim measure that temporarily suspends a lawyer's licence during an ongoing investigation or hearing. It is designed to address potential public risk before a final decision on the merits of a complaint is made.
Kingstonist will continue to follow this trial.