The applicant, S.Q., charged with serious domestic offences, sought to vary his bail conditions due to improved mental health and an impending return to work.
The Crown opposed significant variations, arguing S.Q. continued to pose a risk to the complainant.
The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering its jurisdiction to review the bail conditions.
Applying the Supreme Court's "ladder principle" from *R. v. Antic* and *R. v. Zora*, the court maintained a non-communication order, two sureties, and a residence condition requiring S.Q. to live with a surety (allowing him to reside at his own home with a new tenant surety).
However, the court removed the electronic monitoring and the requirement for constant supervision outside the residence, deeming them disproportionate and not the least onerous conditions necessary to attenuate the identified risk.
Additional conditions prohibiting weapons, alcohol, and non-prescription drugs were imposed.