WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 517(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 517(2) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection (1), read as follows:

517. ORDER DIRECTING MATTERS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD — (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice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the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as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.

(2) FAILURE TO COMPLY — 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.

At the outset of the bail hearing, I imposed a publication ban on the publication of these proceedings, the evidence and allegations received, the submissions made, and these reasons, pursuant to s. 517 of the Criminal Code. For clarity sake, this does not prohibit repro­duction of these reasons by a legal journal or reporting service.

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2021 04 26 Court File No.: Brampton 21-7788

Between:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

TESHAUN WHITE-WILSON

Before: Justice P.T. O’Marra

Heard on: April 23, 2021 Reasons for Judgment on Bail released on: April 26, 2021

Counsel: Theo Sarantis, counsel for the Crown James Miglin, counsel for the accused

P.T. O’Marra, J.:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant is charged with 15 counts that involved firearm offences, domestic violence and breaches of court orders. He was arrested on April 18, 2021 and held for a show cause hearing.

[2] The parties agree that the Defendant is in a reverse onus situation, where he must justify his release on bail, as required by section 515(6)(a)(viii) and (b.1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the alleged offences, the Defendant was subject to two weapon prohibition orders and in 2020 was convicted of assault causing bodily harm against an intimate partner.

[3] The Crown filed an enhanced bail package, which included a detailed synopsis off the allegations, photographs, the Defendant’s criminal record, previous police synopsis, the Defendant’s two probation orders, the Defendant’s weapon prohibitions, the Defendant’s PAR report, the Defendant’s previous Release Orders, a scribed record of the complainant, and Chevon Brown’s KGB statement. The Crown relied upon an affidavit of Lisa Smith, a Criminal Intelligence Analyst of the Specialized Enforcement Bureau of Peel Regional Police Service detailing statistics for firearm crimes in the Region of Peel from 2014-2021. Lastly, the Crown filed a Response to Covid-19 Information Note, dated April 20, 2021 which provides an overview of the current status of the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s response to Covid-19. Three cases were provided to the court.

[4] The Defence submitted surety declarations on behalf of the Defendant’s mother, Tasha White, and his grandmother, Jean Francis. The proposed sureties were examined, and cross examined. The Defendant did not testify.

[5] The Defence’s original plan of supervision, if the Defendant was ordered release, recommended that the Defendant remain in his residence, unless in the direct presence of one of his sureties or absent for medical emergencies/purposes. The idea was to permit the Defendant to reside at either his mother or grandmother’s residence. This would allow the Defendant to carry on his residential catering business out of his mother’s home during the day. However, after Ms. Francis’s testimony, the Defence conceded that Ms. Francis may not be the strongest surety whose role would be to supervise her grandson while he resided in her home. And as such, the plan of supervision proposed that the Defendant reside with his mother, but his grandmother would still act as a surety pledging $10,000.

[6] The Crown opposes the Defendant’s release citing significant concerns on both the secondary and tertiary grounds contained in section 515(10)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code.

The Allegations and Circumstances

[7] The allegations are extremely serious. It is alleged over a six-month period, on five occasions, the Defendant violently assaulted his girlfriend, Ms. Brown. On one occasion, the Defendant choked Ms. Brown, and, on another occasion, the Defendant pointed a handgun at Ms. Brown while in his mother’s residence. After the police arrested the Defendant, a search warrant was executed at the residence and a loaded firearm was located in his bedroom.

[8] The Defendant and Ms. Brown have been dating for 6 months. For the most part it has been an “on and off again” relationship that involved a fair amount of arguing. They reside separately. Ms. Brown resides at an address in Brampton. The Defendant lives with his mother on Parrotta Drive in Toronto.

[9] On April 18, 2021, Ms. Brown attended 21 Division of Peel Police and reported a series of domestic assaults committed by the Defendant. Police observed that Ms. Brown had two black eyes, a small cut to her right temple, bruising to her right upper arm, a raspy voice and her left eye appeared red from a ruptured blood vessel. Photographs of her injuries were taken.

[10] Ms. Brown provided a sworn video taped statement to the police. She disclosed the following incidents of violence:

(a) On April 17, 2021, at approximately 3 am, Ms. Brown and the Defendant were at his home. Suddenly he attacked her. He pulled her by the hair, dragged, punched and stepped on her back. He ripped her shirt and pushed her down the stairs. During the assault he choked her two to three times by putting her in a headlock. He lifted her off the ground that caused her neck to hurt. At some point, the Defendant’s finger poked her in the eye.

(b) On March 21, 2021, Ms. Brown and the Defendant drove to her house. During the drive, the Defendant wanted to smoke in the car. However, Ms. Brown took away his “spliff”. He became upset and grabbed her neck tightly while she drove. She pulled the car over and the Defendant got out to smoke. After they arrived at her house, the Defendant smashed an air fryer that he bought her for her birthday. He then proceeded to choke, punch and slapped her. Ms. Brown remained in the fetal position as she was assaulted by the Defendant.

(c) In early February 2021, while at the Defendant’s residence, he repeatedly punched Ms. Brown and scratched her chest. He pushed her down a flight of stairs. The assault left bruising.

(d) On January 18, 2021 at approximately 8 pm, Ms. Brown was driving the Defendant to drop off a food order at her mother’s friend’s residence. Ms. Brown said something to the Defendant that set him off. He punched Ms. Brown in the face. After they dropped off the food order, Ms. Brown offered to drive the Defendant home, but he ordered her to pull into an alleyway. He then pulled Ms. Brown out of the car and assaulted her.

(e) On January 3, 2021 in the evening, while at the Defendant’s residence, Ms. Brown said something that set him off. He punched her 10 to 15 times, scratched her and ripped her blouse. He proceeded upstairs and returned with a handgun. He pointed the handgun at her. Ms. Brown said, “You are going to shoot me in your mom’s house?” He replied that he would clean up the mess. After she left the residence, Ms. White, the Defendant’s mother, called her. Ms. Brown claimed to have told Ms. White everything that happened that evening. Ms. Brown told the police that she had seen the handgun before, and that the Defendant had brought it with him on their first date. He kept the handgun in a satchel in his bedroom closet. Ms. Brown stated she had moved the satchel in the past and that it felt heavy, however, she did not look inside.

(f) On November 27, 2020, at 8 pm, the Defendant and Ms. Brown stayed at an Air B&B in downtown Toronto. They were talking about the Defendant’s father, which set him off. The Defendant grabbed Ms. Brown, shook her and slapped her in the face.

[11] After the Defendant’s arrest, the police executed a search warrant at his residence. Officers located a black Lorcin L380 .38 caliber semi automatic loaded prohibited firearm on the Defendant’s bedroom floor. The handgun was partially under a dresser. There was one round in the chamber and an additional 6 rounds in the magazine.

[12] The police located the Defendant’s temporary driver’s licence, his health and SIN cards in the dresser. Also found in the top drawer of his beside nightstand was a small plastic bag that contained three bullets. Photographs of the firearm, the bullets and the identity documents were also filed.

The Defendant’s Background and Circumstances

[13] The Defendant lives with his mother at […] Parrotta Drive in Toronto. He is 23 years of age. Since September 2020, the Defendant has been operating a takeout food and delivery business from his residence. Each day, the Defendant fills food request orders over the phone and through Instagram. The food is either picked up or delivered via Uber Eats.

[14] I heard nothing about the Defendant’s level of education or previous employment history.

[15] The Defendant has a criminal record. On February 6, 2020, Mr. Justice Breen suspended the passing of sentence and placed him on probation for two years for assault causing bodily harm. A condition of his probation was not to possess any weapons. He was also placed on a 10-year weapons prohibition order pursuant section 110 of the Criminal Code. At the time of the current offences, the Defendant was subject to both the probation and the weapons prohibition order.

[16] The facts that supported the guilty plea to Assault Causing Bodily Harm are alarming. On August 1, 2018, during an argument with his girlfriend, the Defendant struck Ms. Tulabot in the face with enough force with his fist that the right side of her lip was cut that left a 3 cm hole that required stitches. After his arrest, the Defendant was released on his own recognizance, with a condition that he reside with his mother at the Parrotta Drive address.

[17] On June 4, 2019, the Defendant pleaded guilty to that offence. His bail was varied to permit him to complete the PARs program before sentencing. The Defendant successfully completed the program.

[18] On March 6, 2020, the Defendant pleaded guilty to Assault and two counts of Theft under $5000 before Justice Libman. The Defendant was sentenced to a 4-month conditional sentence which was followed by a 12-month period of probation. A condition of the probation order was not to possess any weapons. The Defendant was also subject to another 10-year weapons prohibition order. Again, at the time of the current offences, the Defendant was subject to both orders.

[19] Originally, the Defendant was charged in February 2019 with Robbery (x2) and Assault. At the time of these offences, the Defendant was on bail for the 9 domestic violence related charges in relation to Ms. Tulabot. Essentially, the new charges were robberies of random strangers of their cellphones. The Defendant was held for bail at the Old City Hall courthouse, in Toronto. He was released on bail with his mother approved as the surety. The Defendant was ordered to reside with his mother.

[20] However, while subject to this release order, the Defendant was charged in October 2019 for fraud, which involved an attempt to defraud the TTC. He was released on a promise to appear notice to appear at the College Park courthouse.

[21] There was limited information regarding this matter. But in the scheme of things, this was a minor offence. I am uncertain what the disposition was or when the matter was resolved, however it was not an outstanding charge at the time of the current allegations.

The Sureties

[22] Ms. White is a 43-year-old single mother. Currently, she is unemployed. In late 2019, she was laid off from her retail position. Like many, she subsists from the assistance through the Federal Government’s CERB (Canada Emergency Response Benefit) program. She testified that at the end of each month after paying her rent and other expenses there is very little money left over. Initially, she agreed to pledge $1,500 as a surety. Unfortunately, it was obvious from her testimony, Ms. White does not have that amount in a bank account.

[23] Ms. White testified that her son has always lived with her. They reside in a two-bedroom townhouse.

[24] She was unclear whether she acted as the Defendant’s surety on both sets of charges. However, both release orders that the Crown produced confirmed that she had bailed out the Defendant on the Robbery charges. Her confusion was not for any nefarious purpose. I believed that she was genuine in her answer. However, in direct examination, Ms. White testified that while the Defendant was under her supervision, she believed that he did not breach his bail.

[25] Regrettably, the Defendant did commit further criminal offences while on bail. I understand that Ms. White was not the Defendant’s surety after he was charged in August 2018, nevertheless, he was ordered to reside at the Parrotta address. Ms. White testified that in February 2019, they had an argument over “house stuff”. The Defendant moved out and lived for a day or two in a shelter. It was during this time; the Defendant committed the assault and thefts of cell phones from two random strangers.

[26] Ms. White testified that when she was the Defendant’s surety, she was unaware that in October 2019 the Defendant was charged with fraud.

[27] Ms. White candidly testified that the Defendant and Ms. Brown did not have a healthy relationship. It was toxic. She confirmed that they often argued. It was her preference that they stop seeing each other.

[28] Ms. White testified that she has never seen the Defendant assault Ms. Brown. She was also very clear that she had never seen the Defendant with a handgun and was unaware that a handgun was in her home.

[29] Ms. Brown called Ms. White from time to time to speak to her about the Defendant, after an argument. Ms. White testified that with respect to the assault allegations after the Defendant dropped off food at her friend’s residence, Ms. Brown did call Ms. White and told her that she was left behind by the Defendant after an argument, and that she only suffered a scratch.

[30] Ms. White confirmed that her mother, Ms. Francis lives just a few minutes away by car. She would be content that the Defendant reside at both addresses. However, if the Defendant was released and ordered to reside with Ms. White, she would vigilantly ensure that the Defendant complies with every condition of his release. Specifically, she would check his phone to ensure that he was not communicating with Ms. Brown. She firmly declared that she would be all over him “like white on rice”. She will invade his privacy, enter his room and go through his personal items and possessions. Without any hesitation, Ms. White testified that she would report the Defendant to the police if he violated the terms of his release.

[31] Understandably, Ms. White, like many, is anxious to return to work. She is actively seeking a new job and would start employment as soon as possible in retail. Initially, she did not see the problem if she returned to the work force while the Defendant’s surety. However, she reversed course and indicated that her role as the Defendant’s surety would be the priority.

[32] If the Defendant was released under Ms. White’s supervision, she testified that she would conscientiously discharge her responsibilities as a surety. I am satisfied that Ms. White understands the role and responsibility of a surety.

[33] Ms. Francis is 68 years of age. Her and her 58-year-old husband live in a two-bedroom apartment on Jane Street. Ms. Francis works in the kitchen of a Senior Living residence in the downtown core. She works Monday to Friday from 7 am to 3 pm. Her husband is not working due to Covid-19.

[34] Ms. Francis is prepared to assist in supervising the Defendant and pledges $10,000 to secure the Defendant’s compliance. Ms. Francis’s most significant asset is an RRSP in the amount of $30,000. The amount that Ms. Francis is prepared to pledge is a substantial amount of money. Ms. Francis would assist driving the Defendant to and from court, and shop for groceries for his business. Ms. Francis struggled to confirm that she would call the police first if she found the Defendant in violation of the terms of his bail. She suggested that she would talk to him first and listen to his explanation before calling the police. After much urging by the Crown, she finally stated that she would call the police.

Discussion

Has the Defendant demonstrated that his detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public?

[35] Detention under the secondary ground is only warranted where an accused poses a “substantial likelihood” of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice, and only where the “substantial likelihood” endangers “the protection or safety of the public”. (See: R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711 at p. 737) A “substantial likelihood” refers “to a probability of a certain conduct, not a mere possibility. And the probability must be substantial. In other words, significantly likely”. (See: R. v. Manasseri, 2017 ONCA 226, at para. 87)

[36] As the assessor of risk of release, a significant consideration must be given to the accused’s criminal record. As well, the accused’s behavior and performance while on bail is an important factor. If, the accused has a poor history of compliance and continues to commit criminal offences while on release, the expectation of following a reasonable plan of supervision diminishes and as such the public is at risk.

[37] After considering the evidence presented, I am less than persuaded that the Defendant, if released, would not pose a substantial likelihood committing further crime that is likely to endanger the public safety.

[38] These are my reasons for reaching that conclusion.

[39] Firstly, although the Defendant’s criminal record is not long, it is a criminal record that is recent and demonstrates that the Defendant is capable of significant violence. The allegations before the court involve consistent, repeated and unprovoked attacks on an intimate partner. The facts that underpinned the recent conviction for Assault Causing Bodily Harm against the victim in 2020 were similar, namely an unprovoked attack on another intimate partner, that left significant injuries to his victim.

[40] The Defendant is presumed innocent. The complexion of a case can change after a vigorous and effective cross-examination. But at the bail stage the Crown’s case is artificially enhanced, notwithstanding that the evidence has not been tested. (See: R. v. King, 2020 ONSC 1935 para. 73) However, the Crown’s case is strong. Ms. Brown has injuries that are documented. She told the police that while at the Defendant’s residence in January, the Defendant pointed a handgun at her. A search of the Defendant’s bedroom belied a loaded firearm near his dresser. The evidence against the Defendant is compelling.

[41] Secondly, the Defendant has a track record of not following his release orders. After his first arrest in 2018, he defied the residency requirement in that release order. According to his mother, after an argument he decided to move out. While living in a shelter, he committed further criminal offences. Moreover, when he was released in February 2019 and his mother was approved as the surety, he committed another criminal offence, albeit the offence was minor in nature. Nevertheless, that stands as a further example of a pattern that the Defendant will do what he wants and whenever he wants.

[42] I am mindful that the Defendant was subject to a Conditional Sentence Order for a four-month period in April 2020 and there were no allegations of breaching that order. However, I do not attach a great deal of weight on his compliance. The Defendant was serving the Conditional Sentence at the outset of the worldwide pandemic when most people were subject to mobility restrictions and stay at home orders.

[43] Thirdly, the Defendant was subject to two probation orders and two weapons prohibition orders. The allegations which if found to be true, demonstrate the Defendant’s obvious callous and flagrant disregard for judicial court orders which are imposed to exert a modicum of supervision and deterrence for an offender.

[44] Fourthly, I am not convinced that the plan of supervision adequately addresses the risk that the Defendant’s release into the community would represent. Ms. White presents as well meaning and a caring mother. I believe that she is an honest person and truly believes that she can supervise the Defendant. She will be at home for the most part, but this pandemic will not last for ever, especially with the vaccination rollout. Businesses will re-open and the economy will take off. Ms. White is seeking employment and is anxious to work. If and when, Ms. White finds another job in the retail industry, no one will be around to supervise the Defendant. Counsel suggested that it was unfair to the Defendant that when examining risk or testing the strength of the plan, for the Court to engage in speculative hypotheticals. Respectfully, as a trier of risk, the examination of what ifs and propensity reasoning is the very essence of assessing the risk to the community that there would be a “substantial likelihood” of the Defendant committing criminal offences that put the public at risk.

[45] If Ms. White does find a job, there would be no one to supervise the defendant while she is at work. These are serious and troubling indictable matters that will be before court for a lengthy period. The Defendant’s grandmother, Ms. Francis cannot supervise the Defendant, as she works full time. I heard no evidence as to what role, if any her husband would play in the plan of supervision.

[46] Given the danger that the Defendant poses and his record of committing offences while on bail, in my view, the plan relies heavily on the Defendant adhering to direction and instruction from his mother. I have no confidence that the Defendant will listen to his mother. Past performance is a predictor of future behavior. The argument over “house stuff” prompted the Defendant to move out, defying a clear condition to reside at his mother’s address. The evidence was anything but clear that the Defendant even listens to his mother or accepts direction from her. Having said that, even if I assume the proposed sureties are completely adequate and the plan of supervision is appropriate, I did not hear any evidence from the Defendant that he is prepared to following the terms of his release and be supervised by his mother and grandmother. Hearing from the Defendant may have assisted me in coming to terms with the Defendant’s risk and determining the success of the plan. But without it, the prospects of the Defendant overcoming his onus on the secondary grounds are very limited. (see: R. v. King, 2020 ONSC 1935 paras. 62 and 64)

[47] Ms. Francis is the asset component to the plan. However, I believe that notwithstanding that the plan does not call for the Defendant to reside with her, Ms. Francis is not equipped to act or even really assist as the Defendant’ supervisor. Most of the day, she is far away from her grandson working full time. As previously mentioned, Ms. White does not have any assets to pledge. The Crown argues that Ms. White as a surety would not feel the “pull of money or bail”, if the Defendant was released. There is no doubt in my mind, that Ms. White would not want her mother to lose a third of her retirement savings, and that is why I am less troubled by Ms. White’s ability to only pledge $1,500. I am more troubled by the Defendant’s past pattern of behavior, which includes breaching bail and committing offences while on bail, than Ms. White’s inability to pledge a sizeable bond on behalf of her son, that weakens the release plan.

[48] Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to persuade me that his detention is not necessary for the protection or safety of the public and Ms. Brown. In making this pronouncement, I do not mean to minimize the threat of Covid-19 in the custodial institutions. We are in the middle of the third wave of the Coronavirus in Ontario. The infection rate has never been higher. It has been well documented that the new variants of concern are infecting the younger population. The virus will always be a threat to inmates in a congregated setting like our jails. The Defendant is young, but he is still at risk. He appeared from Maplehurst wearing a mask and a haze mat suit. The threat is very real. However, the note on Covid-19 information dated just a few days ago confirms that when outbreaks have occurred, they are placed under control. There is a dramatic increase in PPE and testing. There is extensive screening of all inmates. Finally, in mid March 2021 the inmate populations have received vaccinations. All these measures have reduced that risk.

[49] Justice Stribopoulos recently commented in R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 2237, [2020] O.J. No. 2218 that even in these extraordinary times the governing principles on bail remain in effect. Reducing the jail population and releasing everyone is ideal from a public health standpoint. But Justice Stribopoulos went on to state the following:

However, the wholesale release of those held in our detention centres is neither feasible nor sensible. That would serve to return a great many dangerous persons into the community, profoundly threatening public safety. The law continues to require that accused who pose a substantial risk of endangering the public, like Mr. Williams, must remain in custody, even during the COVID-19 pandemic: see R. v. King, 2020 ONSC 1935, at paras. 73-74; R. v. Syed, 2020 ONSC 2195, at para. 50; R. v. Fraser, 2020 ONSC 2045, at para. 16.

[50] For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant has not discharged his onus on the secondary grounds.

Has the Defendant demonstrated that his detention is not justified to maintain confidence in the administration of justice?

[51] In my view, the four factors enumerated in section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code militate towards ordering the Defendant’s detention.

[52] The crown’s case against the Defendant appears most formidable. This is a serious and violent offence against Ms. Brown that involves firearm offences. The circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences include: A Defendant who was previously convicted of a serious violent-domestic related offence; who is twice prohibited from possessing firearms, and who is alleged to be in possession of a loaded firearm that was found on his bedroom floor. Furthermore, on a previous occasion while he possessed a firearm, it is alleged that he pointed the firearm at his girlfriend. Moreover, there are five discreet incidents of domestic violence that includes punching, slapping, hair pulling, choking and pushing the victim down a flight of stairs. In my respectful view, if convicted, accounting for the jump principle, the totality principle and the first penitentiary sentence discount, which he would be entitled to, the Defendant is facing a lengthy term of imprisonment. (See: R. v. King, 2020 ONSC 1935 para. 77) The range of sentence alone for the fireman offences is a low penitentiary sentence. The breach of the weapons prohibition order will attract a consecutive sentence.

[53] In this community, gun crime is rampant. Illegal firearm possession offences, breach of weapons prohibition orders, the investigation of shooting offences and gun shot homicides have nearly doubled in the last 6 years in the Region of Peel. Not only do the daily news reports tell us that gun violence is on the rise, but the statistics bear this out. Despite the fact that the loaded prohibited firearm was found in the Defendant’s bedroom in Toronto and the statistical data pertains to gun violence in the Region of Peel, in my view, the Region of Peel statistical data is demonstrative of the rising firearm offences across the GTA.

[54] In this case, it was argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the Defendant was involved in any gang activity or drugs. Simply put, the dearth of evidence as to the reason for possessing a loaded firearm in his bedroom and no evidence of its use may somehow assist the Defendant in this bail application. Steps need to be taken to acquire a gun whether it was for protection or not, it is dangerous to possess an illegal firearm regardless of the reason. Individuals do not stumble on to an illegal firearm. There is a process of purchasing from a trafficker and secreting the handgun to avoid detection and prosecution. There is a high degree of deliberation and contemplation involved. (See: R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 6631, at para. 16) Ms. Brown swore in a statement that not only did the Defendant possess the firearm, he used it- by pointing it at her and threatening her. It does not take much to cause harm with a firearm even if just to scare someone. Carelessness or malevolence will lead to catastrophe and deadly results. As Justice Harris stated at para. 12,

Harming a person without a weapon is not necessarily easy. But with a firearm, very little is needed. A slight degree of pressure applied to the trigger, a causal aim, and someone will likely be killed or severely injured. It is all too easy. We have come to the point where no intelligence or much of anything else is needed to kill or wreak grievous harm on another person. Malevolence is all that is required. Unfortunately, this is not always in short supply. That is a daunting prospect.

[55] It is important to remember that even when the four factors weigh in favor of detention, a detention order is not automatic. (See: R. v. St. Cloud, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328 at paras. 66-69, 87) A judge must also consider the four factors together with any other factors to determine whether in the case before that judge, detention is necessary “to achieve the purpose of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice”. (See: St. Cloud, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, paras. 69 and 87)

[56] In assessing whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, the concern is with public confidence. (See: R. v. Hall, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309, at para. 41; St-Cloud, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, at para. 72) The measure is the perception of "reasonable members of the community." People who are dispassionate, thoughtful, well-informed, and familiar with the basics of the rule of law, the fundamental values of our criminal law, and the rights guaranteed by the Charter, including the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. (See: St-Cloud, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, at paras. 72-87. And Williams, 2020 ONSC 2237, para. 48)

[57] After considering the four factors outlined in section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Defendant’s performance on bail, his recent convictions for a viscous domestic related assault that caused a significant injury, and stranger thefts that included the associated act of assault on two victims, I am not persuaded that the Defendant’s release on a $10,000 pledged, with the two proposed sureties offering virtual house arrest with other stringent terms of bail, would not cause reasonable members of the community to lose confidence in the administration of justice.

Conclusion

[58] In conclusion, for all these reasons, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his detention is not justified on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Released: April 26, 2021 Signed: Justice P.T. O’Marra