The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.
The court had previously detained the applicant but issued these postscript reasons to address the validity of 'bail set not met' orders, where a release order is made but surety approval is deferred to a separate proceeding.
The court held that such orders are valid in law, including in reverse onus situations.
The court found that the prior decision in R. v. C.S., which held such orders invalid, was decided per incuriam as it failed to consider a long line of binding authority and established practice.
The court emphasized that bail procedures must remain flexible and that the ladder principle's inapplicability in reverse onus cases does not preclude bifurcated surety approval proceedings.
