Bail pending appeal

The applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his daughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending his conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements and in her treatment of a Browne v. Dunn issue, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the grounds of appeal were not frivolous, they were weak and did not clearly surpass the minimal standard required to outweigh the strong public interest in enforcing the sentence for serious sexual offences against a child.

The applicant, having been convicted of drug trafficking and weapons offences and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed bail on the public interest ground, citing the seriousness of the fentanyl trafficking offences.

The motion judge granted bail, finding that the applicant was not a flight or safety risk, and that his appeal grounds—alleging the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis by failing to consider s. 8 and s. 10 breaches holistically—were of moderate strength.

Balancing the reviewability and enforceability interests, the court concluded that public confidence in the administration of justice favoured release.

This is an application for bail pending appeal by an applicant convicted of six serious sexual offences against two younger cousins, for which he received a 12-year global sentence.

The applicant sought bail under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing his appeal was not frivolous and his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal found the first ground of appeal (lack of accredited interpreter) frivolous due to insufficient evidence.

The second ground (jurisdiction to amend indictment for charges spanning youth and adult periods) was deemed weak, with the court finding no material prejudice from the amendment.

Given the seriousness of the offences and the diminished strength of the appeal grounds, the court concluded that the applicant failed to establish that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

Althea Reyes sought bail pending her appeal of convictions for fraud and impersonation, and the subsequent order collapsing her conditional sentence.

The court applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction appeal was deemed to have little merit as she had pled guilty.

While the appeal of the conditional sentence collapse was not frivolous, the applicant failed to persuade the court she would surrender if released, given her history of non-compliance and untruthfulness.

The proposed bail plan, particularly the post-treatment phase with a surety with her own criminal record and inadequate supervision plan, was deemed insufficient.

The court found her detention necessary in the public interest due to her extensive history of fraudulent activities and risk to public safety.

The application for bail pending appeal was denied.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault, assault, and assault by choking, along with breaches of court orders, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court emphasized the high enforceability interest due to the seriousness of the crimes and the applicant's history of violating court orders designed to protect the complainant, which outweighed the reviewability interest, as the grounds of appeal were not strong.

J.P., convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to three and a half years incarceration, was denied release pending appeal by a single judge.

J.P. sought a panel review of that decision, arguing the motion judge erred in principle by relying on public safety, misassessing the appeal's strength, and incorrectly finding serious compliance issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for a release order, finding no palpable and overriding error or material error in principle in the motion judge's decision, which was based on the public confidence component of the public interest test, incorporating public safety and compliance concerns.

Cameron Ortis, convicted of offences under the Security of Information Act and Criminal Code, sought bail pending appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court granted bail, finding that the appeal was not frivolous, the applicant would surrender into custody, and detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The decision emphasized the significant reviewability interest due to novel issues raised on appeal, including the constitutional validity of s. 14 of the SOIA and the impact of s. 38 Canada Evidence Act redactions on the right to a fair trial, which outweighed the enforceability interest given the strict bail conditions and absence of flight or public safety concerns.

The applicant, B.B., sought release pending the determination of his appeal from convictions for sexual assault and assault.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to satisfy the public interest criterion under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the enforceability interest significantly outweighed the reviewability interest, primarily due to the serious nature of the offences and the applicant's inability to provide a sufficiently complete record (missing trial transcripts) to demonstrate that the grounds of appeal clearly surpassed the 'not frivolous' threshold.

The applicant, convicted of 33 counts of voyeurism and sentenced to two years incarceration, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed on grounds of public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the applicant's history of pre-meditated voyeurism and indecent acts, as well as recent allegations of impersonating a police officer while on bail.

The motion judge found a substantial likelihood of the applicant committing further offences and that his detention was necessary for public safety.

Furthermore, releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence given the serious and escalating nature of his conduct, despite the relatively short sentence and the possibility of an expedited appeal.

The application for interim release was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of sexual exploitation and sentenced to 3.5 years, sought bail pending sentence appeal, leave to appeal sentence, and a stay of the SOIRA order.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding the appeal lacked sufficient merit to cause unnecessary hardship if detained.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted as it was not opposed and not frivolous.

The application for a stay of the SOIRA order was adjourned to the panel hearing the sentence appeal, as the jurisdiction of a single judge to grant such a stay was an open question.

This motion concerned a fresh application for a release order pending appeal after the applicant inadvertently failed to surrender on a specified date due to counsel's oversight.

The applicant, convicted of child luring and child pornography offences, promptly surrendered upon discovering the error.

While the Crown consented to release on previous terms, the Court of Appeal, exercising its discretion under s. 679(1) of the Criminal Code, imposed significantly higher financial penalties ($50,000 promise to pay and $20,000 deposit) to ensure public safety, given the nature of the offences and the lack of practical supervision for internet restrictions without sureties.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against a child, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court weighed the high enforceability interest due to the seriousness of the crime against the weak reviewability interest, concluding that a reasonable member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if the appellant were released.

The appeal was ordered to be expedited.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal of a 23-month reformatory sentence for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the appeal had sufficient merit, particularly regarding the availability of a conditional sentence order for sexual assault under the Criminal Code.

The court noted that while Superior Court decisions had found the relevant Criminal Code provision unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal had not yet definitively addressed the issue, creating a legal quagmire for the applicant.

This decision addresses two applications before the Ontario Court of Appeal: the Crown's application to revoke the appellant J.R.'s bail pending appeal due to a breach of conditions, and J.R.'s new application for release on bail pending appeal.

J.R. conceded the breach but argued for a new release order based on extenuating circumstances (illness of himself and his fiancée).

The court revoked the original bail order as required by the Criminal Code but granted J.R. a new bail order with stricter terms (weekly reporting and a personal pledge), finding that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court also ruled that in these exceptional circumstances, J.R. was not required to be taken into custody before being released on the new bail.

The applicant, convicted of child luring and making child pornography, sought judicial interim release pending his appeal of conviction and leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application for bail pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous, the public interest in enforceability of judgments for serious crimes outweighed the reviewability interest, especially given the weak grounds of appeal.

The court ordered the appeal to be expedited.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault and failing to comply with a court order, applied for bail pending the appeal of his convictions.

He had been sentenced to three years in custody for sexually assaulting a 70-year-old personal support worker in his home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court held that the applicant posed a serious risk to public safety due to his history of breaching court orders, and that public confidence required immediate enforcement of the sentence given the seriousness of the offence and the weakness of the appeal grounds.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from convictions for break and enter with intent and assault.

The trial judge found the applicant broke into his former wife's home and assaulted her while bound by a recognizance.

The applicant was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment.

Applying the test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, the court found the appeal not frivolous but with slim prospects of success.

The court was satisfied the applicant would surrender but determined that his detention was necessary in the public interest due to a pattern of domestic violence, breach of prior orders, and inadequate proposed sureties.

The motion for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Arthur Rule, sought leave to appeal his 22-month custodial sentence for possessing and accessing child pornography and bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted both applications.

The sentencing judge had misstated the law regarding the availability of conditional sentences for these offences and failed to adequately consider a conditional sentence as an alternative to incarceration.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated unnecessary hardship due to severe medical conditions requiring complex daily care that would be difficult to manage in custody.

The court found the appeal had sufficient merit and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, as there were no public safety or flight concerns.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and released on bail pending appeal.

He subsequently absconded, failing to reside with his surety or surrender into custody as required by his release order.

His counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record due to a breakdown in communications, which was granted.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal granted the Crown's motion, dismissing the appeal as abandoned and issuing a warrant for the appellant's arrest.

The applicant, Jeremy Bailey, sought bail pending appeal of his 2016 drug trafficking convictions, after his initial bail pending appeal was revoked due to new drug charges and breaches of conditions.

He argued that the subsequent stay of his 2018 charges and potential Charter violations related to his April 2020 arrest constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal denied the application, finding that despite these new developments, the lingering public safety concerns and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given his "flagrant" breaches of prior bail conditions, outweighed the reviewability interest.