Bail hearing

This decision concerns the bail hearing of Ahmed Mashkor, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his four-month-old daughter, L.M. The court reviews the circumstances of L.M.'s death, the applicant's background, the proposed release plan, and the suitability of the proposed surety (the applicant's brother, Ali Mashkor).

The court finds the surety unsuitable and the release plan inadequate, particularly in light of concerns about interference with witnesses and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail is denied.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal, setting aside a motion judge's order that had granted certiorari with mandamus in aid.

The motion judge had compelled a Justice of the Peace to complete a bail hearing that the Justice of the Peace had aborted due to a proposed surety's misconduct and subsequent false denial.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by granting prerogative relief in the absence of jurisdictional error, as the Justice of the Peace's decision to abort the hearing was a discretionary exercise based on an assessment of fairness, not a jurisdictional overreach.

The applicant, Stephane Gagnon, brought two applications seeking a stay of proceedings: one alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time, and another alleging abuse of process related to his return to Canada from Indonesia (argued as a "disguised extradition") and alleged misrepresentations at his bail hearing.

The court dismissed the s. 11(b) application, finding the delay was "Defence Delay" due to Gagnon being a fugitive.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding there was no "disguised extradition" as Indonesia acted lawfully and Canada only provided logistical support, and that the Crown's statements at the bail hearing were not misleading.

The court found no breach of the applicant's s. 7 Charter rights and that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The Crown brought an urgent application for certiorari and mandamus to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision to strike a bail hearing under s. 515(6) of the Criminal Code.

The Justice of the Peace struck the hearing after the proposed surety made a profane remark and then lied about it, deeming it unfair to the accused.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace lacked jurisdiction to strike the proceeding, as the witness's conduct, while unexpected, did not impair the accused's right to a fair hearing or engage principles of fundamental justice.

The court emphasized that a bail hearing is not subject to a "do-over" simply because a release plan falters.

The application was granted, quashing the decision and ordering the bail hearing to be completed.

The accused applied for a detention review after being arrested on new charges while on a release order.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the accused's criminal record, substance abuse issues, and the serious nature of the allegations.

The defence proposed a comprehensive release plan involving residence with sureties in a remote Alberta camp with strict conditions.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Myers, R. v. Antic, and R. v. St-Cloud, found that the proposed plan met the accused's onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court emphasized the principle of restraint and the proportionality of continued detention to a realistic sentence, especially given the accused's mental health issues and time already served.

The accused was released on the proposed terms.

This decision concerns a judicial interim release hearing for Christopher Manning, 19, who faces charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and obstruct police.

These alleged offences occurred while he was on release for two prior sets of charges, placing the burden on him to show cause for release under s. 515(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The defence proposed release with conditions, arguing that further detention was contrary to the interests of justice given the likelihood of a time-served sentence upon conviction and highlighting the accused's status as a member of a visible minority and potential mental health challenges under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court, while acknowledging the importance of considering systemic factors for vulnerable populations, found the proposed release plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offence, particularly due to a history of non-compliance and a lack of detailed information regarding the accused's background and effective community supports.

Consequently, the accused failed to meet the burden for release and was detained.

The accused, Antony Muchemi, faced a judicial interim release hearing where the Crown sought preventative detention on secondary grounds due to numerous alleged offences and a reverse onus position.

The court considered the accused's background, the nature of the allegations, and the conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Despite the Crown's concerns, the court found that a preventative detention order was not appropriate, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the principle of restraint, and the accused's vulnerable circumstances (homelessness, potential mental health issues, and lack of criminal record).

The court determined that a release plan with conditions could reduce the risk to a tolerable level, thereby releasing the accused.

This endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses a non-publication order under s. 517 of the Criminal Code that was imposed at a bail hearing in the court below.

The endorsement states that the full decision, which contains information covered by this order, will not be published online until the non-publication order ceases to be in effect.

In the interim, a physical copy of the decision is available at the Court of Appeal Registry.

The underlying matter is an application to set aside a detention order.

The applicant, Yiu Sun Wong, charged with fraud over $5,000, sought a stay of proceedings based on multiple Charter infringements during his arrest and 72-hour detention.

The court found that while the initial arrest warrant was lawful, its execution and the subsequent detention were unlawful and arbitrary.

Specifically, police failed to obtain a Feeney warrant for an in-home arrest, improperly sought and obtained a six-day remand in British Columbia under a misapprehension of facts, and delayed bringing the applicant before an Ontario justice for 72 hours, during which officers took a day off.

The court found these actions breached the applicant's s. 7 and 9 Charter rights and demonstrated a systemic disregard for statutory duties under the Criminal Code, particularly the principle of restraint (s. 493.1) and timely appearance before a justice (s. 503(1)).

Concluding that no alternative remedy could adequately address the systemic police misconduct and protect the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

John Nanibush, an Indigenous man facing multiple Criminal Code and CDSA charges, including weapon and drug offences, and with a history of non-compliance with court orders, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown sought his detention, citing secondary ground concerns.

The court, acknowledging the reverse onus, considered Mr. Nanibush's traumatic background, Indigenous identity (Gladue principles), and the inhumane conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The judge found that the proposed community support plan, including culturally appropriate programming and mental health/addiction support, adequately addressed the secondary ground concerns, and released Mr. Nanibush on his own recognizance without a surety.

The accused, S.E., sought judicial interim release on serious charges including human trafficking, procuring, sexual assault, and drug trafficking.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing S.E.'s alleged breaches of a previous release order and the unsuitability of proposed sureties.

The court found the proposed sureties unsuitable due to their "blind spots" and inability to provide adequate supervision, and determined that the release plan would not reduce the substantial likelihood of reoffending or maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite S.E. being a member of an overrepresented vulnerable population, the court ordered his detention.

The accused, Alaelddein Alhajsalem, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to a 17-day delay in his bail hearing, arguing a violation of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded a breach of section 11(e) but argued against a stay.

The court found the delay was caused by systemic issues in the Newmarket Bail Court, not related to the pandemic, and that a judicial admonition or sentence reduction would be inadequate.

Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the persistent systemic problem and the flagrant Charter breach, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

This decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario serves as a notice regarding a non-publication order imposed under s. 517 of the Criminal Code.

The order prohibits the publication of evidence, information, representations, and reasons from the underlying bail hearing.

Consequently, the full decision on the application to set aside a detention order will not be publicly available on the court's website until the non-publication order expires.

A physical copy is available at the Court Registry in the interim.

This is a judicial interim release (bail) hearing where the Crown sought the detention of the accused on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court considered the accused's lengthy and violent criminal record, including previous convictions for assault and probation breaches, and current allegations of attempted murder and criminal harassment.

The proposed release plan, involving the Toronto Bail Program and electronic monitoring, was deemed insufficient to mitigate public safety concerns given the gravity of the alleged offences and the accused's history.

The court also considered the accused's status as a member of a vulnerable population under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code but found that the Crown had met its onus for detention on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defendant, charged with multiple firearm and domestic violence offenses, was in a reverse onus bail hearing.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the serious nature of the allegations, the defendant's criminal record including prior domestic violence convictions and breaches of release orders, and the discovery of a loaded firearm.

The proposed supervision plan by the defendant's mother and grandmother was deemed insufficient given the defendant's history of non-compliance and the severity of the charges.

The court found a substantial likelihood of the defendant committing further offenses and that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite COVID-19 concerns in custodial settings.

The defendant's application for bail was denied, and he was ordered detained.

The accused, Fahmi Osman, applied for judicial interim release following charges related to a series of violent drugstore robberies and dangerous driving incidents.

The Crown opposed his release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's history of non-compliance with release orders, and the perceived inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

Despite the accused's health concerns and the increased risk of COVID-19 in detention, the court found that his continued detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was denied.

The accused, Mowafag Saboon, sought judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code after being charged with first-degree murder and various firearm and drug trafficking offenses.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, including the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offenses, the circumstances of the offenses, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions.

The proposed release plan, involving a $15,000 bond with three sureties and electronic monitoring, was deemed inadequate due to the sureties' inability to supervise and the accused's history of misconduct.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffending and that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given the violent nature of the charges and the strong Crown case.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed, and detention was ordered on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant, a young person charged with terrorism-related offences, sought certiorari to quash a youth justice court judge's decision.

The judge had ruled that the Crown was entitled to apply for a de novo bail hearing under s. 33(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), notwithstanding that the young person had previously been released into the care of responsible persons under s. 31(1) of the YCJA by a justice of the peace.

The applicant argued that s. 31 constituted a distinct release scheme, and challenges should proceed under s. 31(4), not s. 33(1).

The Superior Court dismissed the application, affirming that s. 33(1) provides a mechanism for a youth justice court judge to conduct a de novo bail hearing, integrating with the Criminal Code provisions and the YCJA's purpose of providing enhanced procedural protections and avoiding youth incarceration.

A youth, L.L., charged with second-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the Crown did not meet its onus, emphasizing the strong presumption of release for youth and the requirement of exceptional circumstances for tertiary ground detention.

The proposed plan of release with residential and community sureties was deemed adequate, and L.L. was released on house arrest with conditions.

The defendant, facing serious charges including manslaughter, had his bail revoked after his father withdrew as surety.

The court conducted a fresh bail hearing, determining that the original recognizance was vacated and a new de novo hearing was required, with the Crown bearing the onus.

Given the defendant's history of breaching bail conditions and committing further serious offenses, the court found that an unconditional undertaking or less stringent conditions were insufficient.

A surety release was deemed necessary to address public safety concerns and the substantial likelihood of re-offence.

The matter was adjourned to determine adequate sureties and further conditions.