Bail pending appeal

The appellant, a lawyer, was convicted of criminal harassment, extortion, and two counts of uttering threats arising from his conduct toward a former client and a friend.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant failed to meet the public interest component of the bail test on both public safety and public confidence grounds.

The appellant's paranoid and grandiose testimony at trial, combined with the gravity of the offences and the weakness of the appeal, supported detention.

The applicant was convicted of two counts of human trafficking and sentenced to 7.5 years imprisonment.

She sought bail pending appeal on three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence; (2) the trial judge erred in dismissing an application to re-litigate the hearsay issue; and (3) the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The motion judge found the appeal was not frivolous and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, granting bail pending appeal.

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference, internet luring, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.

He was sentenced to six years and ten months imprisonment.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal of his convictions.

The motion judge refused bail, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, it barely met that threshold.

The enforceability considerations arising from the grave nature of the offences—ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child—outweighed the weak grounds of appeal.

The motion judge concluded that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending his conviction and sentence appeal for firearm offences, including pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, stemming from a drive-by shooting.

Despite the Crown's consent, the Court of Appeal denied the application.

The court found the appeal grounds, particularly regarding the sentence, to be weak and determined that the applicant's detention was necessary in the public interest, given the serious nature of the gun violence and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown applied to revoke the appellant's bail release order under s. 679(6) of the Criminal Code due to new charges.

The appellant cross-applied for a fresh bail release pending appeal.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant committed an indictable offence while on release, leading to the revocation of the existing bail.

The court then denied the appellant's application for fresh bail, concluding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant's detention was necessary in the public interest due to public safety concerns (risk of further fraud) and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, especially given the new charges and the weak nature of the appeal grounds.

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, 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 appellant, convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, sought bail pending appeal.

This was a renewed application after a previous denial.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the appellant was not a flight risk, but opposed bail on public interest grounds, specifically public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that while public safety concerns could be mitigated by strict conditions, the high enforceability interest due to the serious nature of the offences and the appellant's lack of insight into the harm caused by prior breaches outweighed the reviewability interest, which was deemed low despite arguable grounds of appeal.

The motion for bail pending appeal was denied.

The applicant, I.W., sought bail pending appeal after his initial bail was revoked due to new charges of assault and uttering threats against his domestic partner, who was his surety.

He had been convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation and sentenced to five years.

The court applied the three-part test for bail pending appeal, focusing on the public interest ground, which involves public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found the enforceability interest to be high due to the seriousness of the original sexual offences and the new charges, which raised lingering public safety concerns and undermined his record of bail compliance.

While the appeal grounds were arguable, they were not considered strong enough to outweigh the high enforceability interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

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 sought bail pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging his assault conviction and nine-month sentence.

The grounds for appeal included the trial judge's use of social context in credibility assessments and sentencing, alleged misapprehension of evidence, and whether simple assault is a lesser and included offense of aggravated assault.

The court denied bail, finding the grounds for leave to appeal were not frivolous but did not clearly surpass the minimal threshold, and that continued detention was necessary in the public interest, balancing enforceability and reviewability.

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, D.R., sought release pending appeal from convictions for three counts of sexual assault, uttering a death threat, assault, and assault with a weapon.

The primary grounds of appeal concerned the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the appellant and the complainant.

The court reviewed the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility and accepting the complainant's, finding that the trial judge had engaged in specific analysis of the sexual assault counts and properly considered the complainant's continued relationship with the appellant.

The court concluded that the appellant's credibility-based grounds of appeal did not meet the "not frivolous" threshold required for release pending appeal.

This is the applicant's second application for bail pending appeal following convictions for sexual assault and distributing intimate images.

The applicant argued a material change of circumstances based on newly available transcripts and an affidavit, alleging ineffective assistance from both previous counsel and an uninformed guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no material change of circumstances as the new grounds of appeal were not "not frivolous." The court also held that public confidence in the administration of justice required the applicant's continued detention, as the enforceability interest outweighed the weak reviewability interest.

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.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal pursuant to s. 679 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant had previously been convicted and his appeal was dismissed, but he subsequently applied to re-open his appeal against conviction to adduce fresh evidence.

Because the formal order dismissing the appeal had not been entered, the court was not functus officio and permitted the application to re-open to proceed.

The motion judge held that the original notice of appeal remained operative, granting jurisdiction under s. 679(1)(a) to consider and grant the applicant's request for bail.

A police officer convicted by jury of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to eight months in prison sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed release, arguing the grounds of appeal lacked merit and that public confidence in the administration of justice required incarceration pending appeal.

The motion judge granted bail, finding the grounds of appeal relating to sufficiency of focus on the dangerous driving and guidance on marked departure were not frivolous and warranted close examination.

The judge held that public interest was best served by allowing the applicant to challenge the conviction before serving the sentence.

Application for bail pending appeal from convictions for bribery, attempt to obstruct justice, criminal breach of trust, and trafficking cocaine, with a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment less 6 months' credit.

The applicant sought to establish that his appeal was not frivolous, that he would surrender himself into custody, and that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court found that while the applicant's grounds of appeal were not frivolous and he would likely surrender himself, his detention was necessary in the public interest given the gravity of the offences, the aggravated circumstances of their commission, and the weakness of the grounds of appeal.

The application was dismissed and the appeal was expedited.

The Crown sought an order vacating the appellant's bail pending appeal and detaining him in custody.

The appellant had been convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of marijuana, and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

While on bail pending appeal, the appellant was arrested on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal addressed the jurisdiction to revoke appeal bail when an appellant remains out of custody and determined that while the court cannot directly revoke bail in such circumstances, it may issue an arrest warrant under the Criminal Code provisions governing bail violations and new indictable offences committed while on release.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal following conviction on four counts: sexual assault, sexual interference, incest, and assault against his biological daughter when she was 13-14 years old.

He was sentenced to eight years in penitentiary.

The Crown opposed bail on public interest grounds, arguing that the seriousness of the offence and length of sentence warranted detention.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding that the grounds of appeal were sufficiently strong to meet the threshold under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, particularly given the incomplete reasons for conviction and the appellant's lengthy history of bail compliance without incident.