Bail conditions

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a house arrest term of a release order contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He was found alone at 4:30 a.m. near Yonge and Dundas in Toronto, holding an open alcoholic beverage.

The defence brought a directed verdict application, arguing the Crown failed to negate exceptions in the release order permitting travel to and from work.

The court dismissed the application, relying on R. v. Blaker to hold the exceptions were not essential elements of the offence.

On the merits, the court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as no evidence supported any applicable exception to the house arrest condition.

The accused pled guilty to manslaughter after providing a substance he believed to be cocaine to the victim, who died from ingesting U-47700, a synthetic opioid.

The accused, along with another individual, also ingested the substance and survived.

The accused failed to call emergency services when the victim was found unresponsive, instead calling for a ride.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the fact that he believed he was supplying cocaine rather than a deadly synthetic opioid.

Two young offenders were convicted of aggravated assault on two unprovoked victims and various breach offences.

The Crown sought four years custody for each.

The court imposed differentiated sentences of 695 days for Hussein and 669 days for Sahal, accounting for pre-sentence custody, restrictive bail conditions, and pandemic-related hardship.

The court considered Hussein's significant mental health issues and remorse as mitigating factors, while noting Sahal's prior criminal record, lack of remorse, and failure to heed prior judicial warnings.

Both received two years probation with conditions including weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery and one global count of wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence.

He was sentenced for robbing six different banks and one attempted robbery over a period of approximately one month.

The offences were sophisticated, pre-planned, and involved the use of stolen vehicles and disguises.

The total amount stolen was $104,800.36, with net losses to the banks of $93,190.36.

The accused was a 20-year-old first offender with no prior record, from a supportive family background, and demonstrated significant potential for rehabilitation.

The court balanced the extremely serious nature of the offences and substantial victim impact against the accused's youth, lack of record, and mitigating circumstances.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and two months incarceration, with a restitution order and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

A 25-year-old offender with a history of addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood sexual abuse pleaded guilty to multiple charges including breaches of probation, assault on a police officer, and sexual assault.

The sentencing judge imposed 30 days jail time (time served) without additional probation, rejecting the Crown's request for a two-year probation order.

The decision critically examines the criminalization of probation breaches for vulnerable individuals and the concept of "system-generated offences," drawing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. v. Zora regarding disproportionate impacts on marginalized populations.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography consisting of 6,617 images (742 unique) and 611 videos (603 unique) depicting children between ages 1 and 14 engaged in sexual acts.

The defendant had a prior criminal record consisting of sexual assaults against children in 1996 and 1997.

The court rejected the defendant's late claim of Indigenous heritage for Gladue considerations, found no credit warranted for restrictive bail conditions or rehabilitation efforts, and imposed a sentence of 26 months imprisonment with ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA registration, lifetime section 161 prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized materials.

A young person charged with three bank robberies committed with an imitation firearm, along with charges of non-compliance with undertakings and bail orders, sought judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person presented a substantial likelihood of committing further serious offences if released and that no bail conditions could adequately protect the public or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed sureties (the young person's parents) were found to be unable to effectively supervise their son, having failed to enforce previous bail orders.

The court ordered the young person detained in custody until trial.

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.

The accused pleaded guilty to operation impaired and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without authorization or licence.

On March 8, 2016, police responded to reports of an impaired driver on Highway 401 in Toronto.

The accused was observed striking barriers and weaving between lanes.

Upon arrest, officers discovered a loaded handgun with the safety in the "off" position in the accused's jacket pocket.

Testing revealed the presence of morphine, codeine, and alprazolam in the accused's system.

The court imposed a $1,500 fine and 18-month driving prohibition for the impaired operation charge.

For the firearm offence, the court sentenced the accused to 3 years imprisonment, reduced to 19 months after accounting for pre-trial custody and mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and harsh detention conditions.

The accused was also placed on probation for 2 years.

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 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.

The accused was charged with possession of Oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The first fail to comply charge was withdrawn.

At trial, the accused alleged violations of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found serious breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search of vehicle) and sections 10(a) and 10(b) (failure to advise of reasons for arrest and right to counsel regarding drug charge).

The court excluded the seized drugs and incriminatory utterances under section 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the accused of both remaining charges.

The accused was charged with assault and disobeying a court order (non-communication bail condition) in relation to a domestic incident.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence applied for a directed verdict (non-suit) on the breach charge.

The court considered six issues: admissibility of the original Information as evidence; whether documentary evidence of a bail order constitutes proof of the accused's knowledge; whether a voice mail message constitutes "communication" under the bail condition; whether the Crown proved the accused made the call; whether the message necessarily breached the order given other residents in the home; and whether the Crown proved the timing of the breach.

The court dismissed the defence application, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed trier of fact to find guilt on the breach count.

The defendant requested that the court consider dismissing the plaintiff’s action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the claim was frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim alleged that the defendant bar encouraged a tenant’s alcoholism and that the tenant later assaulted the plaintiff, causing the tenant to be subject to bail conditions preventing contact with the plaintiff and thereby depriving the plaintiff of rental income.

The court held that no cause of action lies against a defendant based on bail conditions imposed under the Criminal Code and that the pleading did not disclose a recognizable claim for slander or other actionable wrong.

The court directed the registrar to issue notice under Rule 2.1.01 giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain why the action should not be dismissed and stayed the action pending the written hearing.

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.

A bail hearing for a young person charged with theft, possession of stolen property, obstructing a peace officer, breach of recognizance, possession of marijuana, and breach of probation.

The Crown and duty counsel jointly submitted for release on a recognizance with a surety (the young person's mother) and proposed conditions, including that the young person "be amenable to the routine and discipline of his residence." The Justice of the Peace declined to impose this condition, finding it vague, unnecessary, and unrelated to the grounds for detention under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had been subject to a bail condition prohibiting him from driving while also serving a 90‑day administrative driver’s licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

After the suspension expired and a temporary licence was issued, he drove and was charged with breaching the bail condition.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis that the accused may have honestly forgotten the bail condition and therefore lacked the necessary mens rea.

The Superior Court held that s. 145(3) requires subjective fault and that an honest mistake of fact may raise a reasonable doubt, while a mistake of law cannot.

As there was some evidentiary basis for the trial judge’s reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s state of mind, the appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of Fail to Comply with Recognizance, alleging breach of house arrest conditions and possession of alcohol contrary to a release undertaking.

The Crown sought to admit certified copies and exemplified documents (Information and Recognizance of Bail) under section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown conceded it had not provided adequate notice as required by section 28.

The Crown alternatively argued the documents were admissible under common law as exemplifications or as a principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court rejected both alternative arguments, holding that both certified copies and exemplifications require notice under the CEA, and that the documents could not satisfy the necessity requirement of the Khan exception since original documents were available.