Bail conditions

The appellant was convicted under s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code for twice failing to present himself at the door of his residence when police attended to verify compliance with his bail curfew condition.

The central issue on appeal was whether the mens rea for the failure-to-comply offence is to be assessed on a subjective or objective standard.

The Court held unanimously that the Crown must establish subjective fault, requiring proof that the accused breached the bail condition knowingly or recklessly.

The Court further articulated that bail conditions must be imposed with restraint, tailored to the individual accused's risks, and subjected to rigorous review by all participants in the bail system.

Because the courts below applied an objective standard of fault, the convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered on the two counts of failing to attend at the door.

The appellant appealed his conviction for shooting a handgun at a person on a residential street in Ottawa.

The trial judge admitted but gave no weight to the appellant's alibi evidence because it was disclosed late (on the second day of trial, nearly a year after the alleged offense) and because the trial judge disbelieved the explanation for the late disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly drew an adverse inference regarding the late alibi disclosure and properly rejected the credibility of the explanation offered by the appellant's brother.

The appellant appealed his conviction on one count of counseling to kidnap and one count of counseling to rob, as well as his sentence of nine months imprisonment.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's evidence and accepted the Crown's evidence, including testimony from an undercover officer supported by intercepted communications.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and concluded that the evidence established either intent or recklessness as to the risk inherent in counselling, meeting the test established in R. v. Hamilton.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to address defence counsel's submissions regarding pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The sentence was reduced from nine months to eight months to account for a 14-day credit for nine days of pre-trial custody and an additional two-week credit for over a year of restrictive bail conditions.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection due to risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The respondent mother acted as surety for her brother, who was charged with multiple counts of luring, sexual exploitation, and child pornography involving teenage female students.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on the mother's failure to recognize or protect against the risk posed by the maternal uncle, despite overwhelming evidence of his predatory conduct.

The court made a finding of need for protection but declined to make a further order, noting that the maternal uncle's incarceration had ameliorated the imminent risk.

The defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and threatening death following a knife attack in a restaurant, and assault on a police officer.

The trial judge had previously stayed all charges except assault with a weapon due to police brutality during arrest.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 90 days jail while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, finding that a nine-month conditional sentence was appropriate when accounting for the Charter breach involving excessive police force, pre-trial detention, and lengthy bail conditions.

The accused was charged with six counts of assault on his wife occurring between 2007 and 2013, one involving a television remote control as a weapon, as well as criminal harassment in summer 2016 and failing to comply with a recognizance on September 9, 2016.

The case turned on credibility.

The Crown called only the complainant as a witness.

The accused testified and denied all allegations, providing an alibi for September 9, 2016.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted on all assault counts but acquitted on the fail to comply and criminal harassment charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the accused's presence at the complainant's workplace on September 9, 2016.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance arising from an incident on February 11, 2017.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant, Angel Bryan.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony, admitted lies regarding the identity of a witness, and a prior conviction for attempted fraud.

Despite evidence of injuries and blood at the scene, the court concluded that the credibility problems and absence of corroborating evidence left reasonable doubt as to whether the assaults occurred.

All charges were dismissed.

A bail de novo hearing under section 33 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act concerning a young person charged with assault, carrying a concealed weapon, failing to comply with a youth court sentence, threatening to cause bodily harm, theft, possession of stolen property, possession of a burglary tool, failing to comply with a recognizance, and drug-related offences.

The Crown consented to release with a surety, while the defence sought release to a bail program with shelter accommodation.

The court found that the young person's history of non-compliance with bail conditions and failure to appear in court, combined with allegations of further offences committed while on bail, demonstrated that supervision by a bail program would be insufficient.

The court released the young person on a recognizance with a surety and imposed strict conditions including residence with the surety, attendance at school or employment, drug counselling, weapons prohibition, and no contact with the complainant.

The accused was sentenced following conviction for assault causing bodily harm in a domestic violence context.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment (credited as seven months and eight days with pre-sentence custody), followed by three years of probation.

The sentence took into account the accused's extensive criminal history involving violent offences dating back to 2007, the domestic nature of the assault, and the demeaning and violent manner in which the assault was perpetrated.

The court credited the accused minimally for time spent on bail release conditions.

The probation order included conditions requiring the accused to keep the peace, report to a probation officer, attend domestic violence counselling programs, maintain no contact with the victim, and remain at least 100 metres from places the victim frequents.

A lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made.

A $200 victim fine surcharge was imposed with one year to pay.

The appellant appealed a ten-year sentence imposed for manslaughter following her conviction for beating her three-year-old daughter to death.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: inadequate credit for stringent bail conditions, penalization for letters of support from family members, treatment of absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, and failure to consider immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing decision.

The court emphasized the brutal nature of the killing, the extensive injuries inflicted on the victim, and the absence of meaningful mitigating factors.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed 497.32 grams of cocaine found in a concealed compartment in the rear seat of his BMW.

The accused challenged the arrest and search on Charter grounds, arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter due to the officer's failure to confirm complete bail conditions before arrest, but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but acquitted of failure to comply with bail conditions due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the second cell phone was operational.

A mother sought to have her two young children returned to her care under child protection supervision, or alternatively for generous access.

The children had been apprehended following allegations of physical assault by the mother.

The mother was charged criminally and subject to bail conditions prohibiting contact with the children.

The Society opposed access pending completion of a trauma assessment, citing the need to "better understand what is going on." The court ordered supervised access of a minimum of two hours twice weekly, finding that complete separation from the primary caregiver for over six months posed risks of emotional harm and that supervised access could protect the children while maintaining their only significant family tie.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of breach of probation and was found not guilty of four additional counts following a three-day trial.

The defendant had been charged with child pornography offences in 2013 and 2014, and was released on conditions prohibiting attendance at public parks where children under 16 were present.

The breaches involved attending Canada's Wonderland, the Toronto Zoo, and a public park with his girlfriend's two children.

The Crown sought two years less a day; the defence sought 30 to 45 days.

The court imposed a sentence of five months imprisonment concurrent on each count, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including counselling and employment requirements.

The Crown applied without notice to adjourn a trial scheduled for the date of the hearing.

The accused was charged with Assault, Forcible Confinement, Failing to Comply with a Recognizance, and Mischief arising from an alleged altercation with his wife.

The Crown's primary reason for the adjournment was the lack of an available courtroom.

The complainant did not attend on the first day and was unable to remain on the second day due to childcare constraints.

The defence opposed the adjournment, citing restrictive bail conditions on the accused.

The court granted the adjournment, noting the systemic overbooking of trials in the jurisdiction and the practical impossibility of proceeding.

The court agreed to narrow the trial to one day instead of two and encouraged the Crown to consider amending restrictive bail conditions on consent.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and choking against his 16-year-old cousin.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two to three years, while the defence sought a significantly shorter sentence with creative sentencing approaches including conditional sentences and intermittent sentences.

The court rejected the defence's proposed sentencing approach as violating fundamental sentencing principles and statutory requirements.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to be served concurrently on all charges, followed by two years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and 20-year sex offender registry requirement.

The accused was charged with being a party to the offence of breach of recognizance by abetting the principal accused in breaching a condition requiring him to reside with his surety each and every night.

The court found that the principal accused did breach the recognizance condition by spending nights at a different residence from his surety.

The court further found that the accused, as surety, deliberately misled the bail court by failing to disclose her actual primary residence and intentionally encouraged the breach through her conduct of leaving the principal accused unsupervised at night at the address she had provided to the court.

The accused was convicted.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s order granting judicial interim release to three accused charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The Crown argued that the justice erred in assessing the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10).

The reviewing judge held that although the case involved serious allegations including possession of handguns with obliterated serial numbers, a silencer, and drugs, the justice of the peace did not commit an error in law or principle.

The strength of the prosecution’s case was uncertain due to potential Charter issues concerning warrantless access to a safe and evidentiary concerns linking some accused to the seized items.

The Crown’s request to substitute detention orders was dismissed, though several release conditions were modified to address inconsistencies and strengthen supervision.

The applicant was charged with unlawful production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought an application under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) had been infringed.

The court found that the applicant had suffered Crown delay of approximately two months, institutional delay of approximately 14 months and 13 days, and actual prejudice to both his liberty and security interests.

The operative delay of 16 months and 13 days exceeded the Morin guidelines by approximately six and a half months.

Balancing all factors, including the seriousness of the offences against the applicant's prejudice and the institutional failures to expedite the proceedings, the court granted the application and stayed the charges.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a scheduled Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) hearing on the grounds that its key psychiatric witness, Dr. McDonald, was unavailable.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the Crown had failed to exercise due diligence in securing the witness's attendance despite having known the hearing date for eight months.

The court noted that the accused had made significant progress in treatment and rehabilitation since his release on bail, and that the Crown had failed to meet the established test for adjournment under R. v. Darville.

The court proceeded to sentencing based on the accused's guilty pleas.