WARNING
An order restricting publication in this proceeding was made under s. 517 of the Criminal Code and continues to be in effect. This section of the Criminal Code provides:
517(1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as
(a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or
(b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
517(2) Everyone who fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
517(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 17]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 517; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 17.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judges: Watt, Lauwers and Paciocco JJ.A.
Between
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Jabril Abdalla Applicant
Counsel
For the Applicant: Leora Shemesh
For the Respondent: Holly Loubert and Nicole Rivers
Heard and Released Orally: October 7, 2019
On Review of: A detention order made on May 24, 2019 by Justice Dale Parayeski of the Superior Court of Justice.
Reasons for Decision
1At the direction of the acting Chief Justice under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code, the applicant seeks an order setting aside the detention order made by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, and substituting an order for the release of the applicant pending his trial on two counts of first degree murder and single counts of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
2We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the application judge. In our view, the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error of law or of principle; any palpable and overriding error in any factual determinations made; or a conclusion that was plainly unreasonable. The findings of fact made by the application judge are owed deference in this court. There is no palpable and overriding error in those findings, in particular those which grounded his determination on the primary and secondary grounds. He reached reasonable conclusions about the strength of the case for the Crown and the fragility of the proposed plan of release, especially the adequacy of the supervision proposed.
3The application is dismissed.
David Watt J.A.
P. Lauwers J.A.
David M. Paciocco J.A.