G. Castle-Trudel

The Crown brought a bail review application seeking to detain the accused, who had been released by a justice of the peace on charges including robbery with weapons.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred in principle by inadequately considering the gravity of the offences, the accused's lack of connection to the jurisdiction, and his history of failing to attend court.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the court ordered the accused detained on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused argued that disclosure constituted a material change in circumstances because witness statements no longer clearly placed a firearm in his possession during the incident.

The court applied the criteria for bail review and new evidence articulated in St. Cloud and Palmer.

The court held that even without firearm evidence, the seriousness of the assault allegations, the accused’s lengthy criminal record, repeated breaches of court orders, and weak bail plan meant detention remained justified on the secondary ground.

The alleged change in the Crown’s evidence was therefore not material to the detention decision.

Following a conviction for criminal harassment based on repeated sexualized letters sent from jail to an unwilling complainant, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

The court found the predicate offence was a serious personal injury offence and that the offender had established a pattern of repetitive behaviour creating a high risk of future psychological, and possibly physical, harm to elderly women.

However, applying the governing framework, the court concluded there remained a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community through a fixed penitentiary sentence, strict geographic and behavioural restrictions, treatment, and a long-term supervision order.

The dangerous offender application was denied and a long-term offender designation was made.