M. Karimjee

The applicant, a key organizer of the Freedom Convoy, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after a Justice of the Peace ordered her detention on secondary and tertiary grounds following an alleged breach of her release conditions.

The reviewing judge found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by conflating the reverse onus at a bail hearing with the onus at trial, misinterpreting the release condition, and failing to consider material changes in circumstances.

Conducting a hearing de novo, the court concluded that the applicant did not pose a substantial risk to public safety and that her detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was granted and judicial interim release was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, arguing that the police officer's traffic stop constituted an arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter.

The trial judge found the stop was a lawful random compliance check under the Highway Traffic Act, despite the officer's attention being drawn to the vehicle by a lawful U-turn.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that random stops do not require pre-determined criteria and are lawful provided they are not pretense stops for unrelated or discriminatory purposes.

The accused applied for judicial interim release after a justice of the peace had denied bail under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued that the detention order contained an error of law and that a material change in circumstances existed due to the availability of additional sureties.

The court reviewed the strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity and circumstances of the alleged offences, and the potential for lengthy imprisonment if convicted.

The court found that the initial decision properly applied the tertiary ground analysis and that strong evidence, including DNA linking two violent sexual assaults and eyewitness accounts, supported detention.

The court concluded that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and dismissed the application.