2 total
Second bail review denied; no material change or legal error established.
The accused applied for a second bail review after a prior review had been dismissed by another Superior Court judge.
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the original justice of the peace’s decision or only the earlier review decision, concluding that under s. 520(8) of the Criminal Code and the authority of Saracino, the review was limited to assessing the earlier judge’s decision.
The applicant argued there had been a material change in circumstances and that the earlier judge misapplied the test from St‑Cloud in light of subsequent appellate authority.
The court found that the alleged new evidence, including statements by a co‑accused during sentencing, was not credible or capable of affecting the bail determination and therefore did not constitute a material change.
The court further held that the prior reviewing judge made no material error in principle and that detention on primary and secondary grounds remained justified.
The court found breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter after police unilaterally connected an impaired driving suspect to duty counsel following an equivocal response to his rights.
The applicant sought to exclude all evidence including breath sample results and oral utterances pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of his right to counsel under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and a violation of his section 8 rights.
The court found a breach of the informational component of the applicant's section 10(b) Charter rights and a marginal breach of the applicant's section 9 right, but found no violation of section 8 rights regarding reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.
