Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Csordas, 2023 ONCA 166

Date: 20230309

Docket: M54092 (COA-23-CR-0200)

Before: van Rensburg J.A. (Motion Judge)

Between:

His Majesty the King

Respondent

and

Bradan Csordas

Applicant/Appellant

Counsel:

Shannon Darby, for the applicant

Scott Patterson, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: March 6, 2023

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant was sentenced today to 36 months in jail for weapons offences and to additional time for other offences, in respect of events that occurred on January 26, 2022. He appeals both conviction and sentence.

[2] In his application for release pending appeal, the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court that he meets the conditions under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[3] This is a difficult case in view of the applicant’s mental health issues, which seem to have been very much implicated in his offences to date, as well as the fact that he has been compliant for the last eight months with the terms of his release.

[4] The Crown acknowledges that the appeal is not frivolous. The Crown opposes bail on the third part of the test, the public interest criterion under s. 679(3)(c), and by extension, the second part of the test, the requirement to surrender, under s. 679(3)(b). The Crown contends that the applicant’s record of offences between 2020 and 2022, which have included incidents with weapons and breaches of terms of release, raise public safety concerns. The Crown also contends that the applicant’s interest in the reviewability of his conviction and sentence is outweighed by the public interest in enforceability.

[5] The applicant has put before the court a plan that is essentially a continuation of what has been in place, without incident, for the last eight months. That plan involves GPS monitoring of the applicant and the involvement of two sureties, his mother, Ms. Jacobi, with whom he is required to live, and a close friend of the family who lives nearby.

[6] The applicant was just arrested on failure to comply charges in relation to an incident that occurred in the summer of 2022, when his second surety at the time withdrew. The charges allege that, in violation of his terms of release, he left the surety’s home and was in the possession of weapons, namely a crossbow, a rifle BB gun, magazine and a collapsible baton. The applicant points out that the police delayed filing these new charges against him, which he says supports his position that he is not a threat to public safety. The applicant also points out that, as Ms. Jacobi has sworn in her supplementary affidavit, she did not know about the circumstances at the time, which included finding weapons in the bedroom that the applicant was occupying at the second surety’s home.

[7] I share the Crown’s concerns about Ms. Jacobi’s ability, despite her best intentions, to supervise the applicant. It is concerning that the index offences occurred at a time when Ms. Jacobi was acting as a surety for her son on other charges, and he was required to live with her. In fact, he was living with his aunt (in respect of whom there was a no-contact condition), and he was in possession of a gun and ammunition.

[8] It is also concerning that, in respect of the most recent charges, Ms. Jacobi was not aware that additional weapons were found in her son’s bedroom. Irrespective of whether there was delay in laying the charges and whether the applicant may have a defence to those charges, it does leave me with some concern about the suitability of Ms. Jacobi as a surety and her ability to prevent any further violations.

[9] In my view, there is a strong likelihood that the applicant will breach the terms of release proposed under this plan. In view of the applicant’s history, including the circumstances of the index offence, and his apparent preoccupation with weapons, there is a real risk to public safety. Accordingly, the applicant has not met his onus in the circumstances of showing that his release pending appeal is in the public interest.

[10] The application is dismissed.

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”