2 total
Peace bond hearing may proceed ex parte with agent, but agent cannot sign recognizance for defendant.
The Crown brought an application for a peace bond against the defendant, who had moved to Alberta and could not attend the hearing.
The court considered whether the hearing could proceed ex parte with a law student acting as the defendant's agent.
The court held that the hearing could proceed ex parte and that the student could act as an agent because a peace bond hearing does not result in a summary conviction.
However, the court ruled that the agent could not sign the recognizance on the defendant's behalf, and any resulting warrant of committal for failing to sign would only be executable within Ontario.
A law student may represent an absent respondent in a peace bond hearing, but any resulting committal warrant is executable only within Ontario.
An application was brought seeking a recognizance to keep the peace against the respondent.
The respondent, having relocated to Alberta and lacking financial means to return, was not present at the hearing.
The court considered four key issues: whether the matter could proceed ex parte with the respondent's agent; whether the respondent was aware of the consequences of failing to enter into a recognizance; whether a law student could appear as agent given the potential for imprisonment exceeding six months; and whether the agent could enter into the recognizance on behalf of the respondent or whether the court could direct entry into the recognizance in another jurisdiction.
The court determined that the hearing could proceed ex parte with the agent present, that the respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences, that section 802.1 of the Criminal Code did not prohibit the agent's appearance in a section 810 proceeding, and that the respondent must personally enter into the recognizance, with any warrant of committal being executable only within Ontario.
