The Crown sought estreatment of a recognizance after the accused failed to appear in court while released on bail secured by a $5,000 recognizance consisting of a $2,500 cash deposit and a $2,500 no‑deposit pledge by a surety.
The surety had personally deposited the $2,500 cash but sought its return after attempting to be relieved as surety and reporting the accused’s breach to police.
The court considered the statutory framework governing recognizances and forfeiture under the Criminal Code and authorities addressing standing and ownership of bail deposits.
While recognizing that a surety may deposit bail money and may have standing to seek its return, the court held that in this case the recognizance and receipt clearly recorded the cash deposit in the accused’s name.
As a result, the deposit could not be returned to the surety and was forfeited upon the accused’s default.
