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.
