Bail pending appeal

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.L.'s application for bail pending appeal from convictions for multiple offences, including sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

The court reviewed the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the grounds of appeal did not clearly surpass the "not frivolous" standard and that public safety and enforceability concerns outweighed reviewability.

The court emphasized the applicant's persistent breaches of release conditions and the risk to the complainant, concluding that continued detention was necessary in the public interest.

The appeal was ordered expedited due to the time already served.

The appellant, Deepak Chhabra, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.

He sought bail pending appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen the trial to admit new GPS evidence and in other respects.

The Crown opposed bail, citing flight risk, particularly because Chhabra attempted to leave Canada the day before sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the reviewability interest outweighed enforceability, given the short sentence and the safeguards in the proposed release plan, and granted bail with additional conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adeyanju Olaniyan’s application for bail pending appeal of his committal for extradition to the United States on fraud charges.

The court reviewed the statutory test for bail pending appeal in the extradition context, emphasizing the low threshold for the merits of the appeal but the heightened concern for flight risk due to Canada’s international obligations.

The court found that Mr. Olaniyan had not established he was not a flight risk, given his prior breach of bail conditions and the inadequacy of his proposed release plan.

The application was dismissed and the appeal was ordered expedited.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed B.N.'s application for bail pending appeal from convictions for sexual assault and related offences.

The court found that, although the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" standard, public safety concerns—given B.N.'s extensive history of breaches and violence—outweighed reviewability and enforceability interests.

The decision applies the Oland/Farinacci framework for bail pending appeal and emphasizes the stand-alone importance of public safety in intimate partner violence cases.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted William Craig Robson’s motion for release pending appeal and a partial stay of his driving prohibition after his conviction for dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and raised significant legal issues, including the definition of “public” under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code and causation in the context of dangerous off-road activities.

The court concluded that Robson did not pose a risk to public safety and that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted Morthaza Amirdad’s application for bail pending appeal after his conviction for 50 firearms offences.

The court found that the applicant’s argument regarding the trial judge’s failure to properly apply the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Debot to confidential informant information was a credible ground of appeal.

The court also considered public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice, ultimately concluding that the applicant’s strict compliance with bail conditions, strong proposed bail plan, and status as a first-time offender justified release pending appeal, despite the seriousness of the offences.

The applicant, Terry Lynn Bardwell, sought bail pending appeal of her conviction and sentence for drug trafficking and carrying a concealed weapon.

She had previously pleaded guilty and received a conditional sentence, which was later terminated due to breaches, leading to her incarceration.

The court applied the test for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the applicant failed to satisfy the court that she would surrender into custody or that her detention was not necessary in the public interest, given her history of breaching the conditional sentence terms while living with her proposed surety.

The application for release pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of two counts of indecent assault and sentenced to four years concurrent, sought bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the three elements under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal was frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was deemed not frivolous and the applicant was likely to surrender, the court found that his detention was necessary in the public interest.

Balancing the strong interest in enforceability due to the seriousness of the sexual offences against children against the weak interest in reviewability given the weakness of the appeal grounds, the court dismissed the application for bail pending appeal.

K.K. sought bail pending his appeal of sexual offence convictions involving minor complainants.

The appeal grounds included claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary due to the trial judge's erroneous discharge of counsel and denial of an adjournment, leading to pressure to plead guilty while unrepresented.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding the appeal was "not frivolous" and that K.K.'s surrender could be assured with appropriate conditions.

The court also determined that detention was not necessary in the public interest, considering K.K.'s compliance with previous release terms and the ability of strict bail conditions to mitigate public safety concerns.

The appellant, S.M.C., sought to appeal a sexual assault conviction but failed to perfect the appeal despite numerous court appearances, extensions, and warnings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned, citing egregious and persistent non-compliance with court directions, including a prior failure to comply with bail conditions.

The court emphasized that the justice system cannot operate effectively if court orders are disregarded.

The applicant sought bail pending an application for leave to appeal his conviction for possessing heroin mixed with fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his conviction and sentence appeal.

The motion judge applied the three-part test for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, considering whether the leave application was frivolous, if the applicant would surrender, and if detention was necessary in the public interest.

While the applicant satisfied the surrender criterion and the leave application was deemed not frivolous (though with low prospects), the court found that the public interest, particularly the enforceability of the sentence for a serious drug trafficking offense, outweighed the reviewability interest, especially after the conviction had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The application for bail pending leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant, Ross Jacko, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

The application was brought under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

While the Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous, the court found the proposed release plan, involving two sureties (mother and friend) and strict terms, insufficient to address flight risk and public safety concerns.

Given the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of violent offences, and prior bail breaches, the court was not satisfied he would surrender or that his detention was unnecessary in the public interest.

The application was dismissed, with an order to expedite the appeal hearing.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The Crown opposed, arguing the applicant failed to satisfy the public interest criterion of the R. v. Oland test, citing the seriousness of the offense, the applicant's criminal record including prior breaches of release conditions, and the perceived weakness of the appeal grounds.

The court granted bail, finding the proposed appeal grounds were not frivolous and that the time already served by the applicant was relevant to public confidence.

The court balanced the enforceability of the judgment against its revisability, concluding that the latter outweighed in this instance.

The applicant, K.K., sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of sexual assault, uttering threats, and assault against his domestic partner.

The application was dismissed.

The court applied the three-part test for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, focusing on the public interest ground.

It found that the enforceability interest outweighed the reviewability interest due to the seriousness of the domestic violence crimes, the applicant's history of violence and non-compliance with court orders, a high risk of re-offending in domestic violence, and the appeal grounds not significantly surpassing the "not frivolous" standard.

Concerns were also raised about the proposed surety, who was a recent victim of the applicant's violence.

The appellant, D.L., sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of serious offences including sexual assault, assault, mischief, extortion, unlawful confinement, criminal harassment, and breach of probation, and pleading guilty to possession of cocaine for trafficking, receiving a six-year sentence.

His initial bail was granted but later denied after he was charged with uttering a death threat and trial transcripts became available, weakening the appeal's perceived strength.

D.L. reapplied for bail after the threat charge was withdrawn and he entered a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal denied the application, finding that the withdrawal of the threat charge did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to revisit the prior denial, and that public interest concerns, including the seriousness of the offences, the lengthy sentence, and the appellant's criminal history, justified his continued detention.

The appellant, Feisal Noor, sought release pending appeal of his convictions for gun-related charges.

The Crown opposed, arguing the appeal grounds were frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous, citing recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on Charter ss. 8 and 9 issues related to police detentions and gun seizures.

Balancing enforceability and reviewability interests, and considering the appellant's compliance with prior release terms and family sureties, the court granted bail pending appeal, with a strict condition for expeditious perfection of the appeal.

The Crown applied under s. 679(6) of the Criminal Code to revoke the respondent's bail release order, which had extended his release pending appeal.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-application for release pending appeal.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent had committed new indictable offences while on bail, including possession of break-in instruments, stolen mail, ammunition, and potential bomb-making materials.

The court concluded that the enforcement interest outweighed the reviewability interest, particularly given the nature of the new charges and the reduced concern for appeal delay.

Consequently, the respondent's bail release was revoked, and his application for release pending appeal was denied.

The applicant, convicted of serious sexual offences against a child in foster care, applied for bail pending appeal of his conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered the three criteria under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the first two criteria were met or conceded, the court focused on public confidence in the administration of justice, balancing the public interest in reviewability against enforceability.

Given the gravity of the offences, the aggravated circumstances, the lengthy sentence, and the weakness of the grounds of appeal (which did not "clearly surpass" the not frivolous standard), the court found that the interest in immediate enforcement outweighed the interest in release.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Alexander Sangster, sought bail pending his conviction and sentence appeal for aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, firearm offences, and breach of recognizance.

He was sentenced to seven years and seven months.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court granted bail, finding that the applicant had made substantial progress in managing his addiction, reducing public safety risk, and that the public interest in reviewability outweighed the enforceability interest, especially given the length of sentence already served and the arguable grounds of appeal.

The applicants, Darko and Daniel Stojanovski, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of attempted murder and discharging a firearm, and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court found the appeals were not frivolous but dismissed the applications, concluding that detention was necessary in the public interest due to the serious nature of the offences, the unacceptably weak release plan, and the weak grounds of appeal, which outweighed the applicants' arguments regarding COVID-19 risks in detention.