2 total
The court dismissed an application to vary bail conditions, finding that foreseeable surety inconveniences do not constitute a material change in circumstances.
The applicant sought to vary conditions of judicial interim release, specifically regarding residency, curfew, and surety accompaniment, citing material changes in circumstances such as his parents' planned vacation and his spouse's new shift-based employment.
The respondent opposed, arguing no material change had occurred.
The court, applying criteria derived from R. v. St. Cloud, found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances, as the proposed changes were either foreseeable or discretionary.
Consequently, the application to vary the conditions was largely dismissed, with only a minor variation agreed upon by consent to allow for court attendance.
Strict bail terms justified release pending extradition hearing.
On an application for judicial interim release in an extradition proceeding, the applicant sought release pending a hearing on possible extradition to the United States on allegations analogous to sexual interference.
The court applied the reverse-onus bail framework under the Extradition Act and Part XVI of the Criminal Code, with particular attention to the tertiary ground as explained in St-Cloud.
Although the extradition case was strong and the allegations were grave and disturbing, uncertainty about the precise foreign charges and potential sentence, together with a stringent surety-based release plan, favoured release.
The court held that detention was not justified on the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds and ordered release on extensive conditions.
