Court and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2024·11·22 NEWMARKET
BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — J.S.
ENDORSEMENT ON 519.1 APPLICATION November 22, 2024.
KENKEL J.:
[1] Mr. JS applied under s 519.1 for a variation of his house arrest bail to permit attendance at a college. The variation was refused, and the application was dismissed. There is no requirement to give reasons for the dismissal of a 519.1 application, but defence counsel subsequently made a request and I find it appropriate to do so in this case.
[2] A release order may be varied by an application under s 519.1 where the accused, the prosecutor and the surety consent to the variation. The variation is not mandatory, nor is the consent of the parties sufficient. The application is placed before a judge who retains a discretion as to whether to approve or deny the variation.
[3] Most applications under s 519.1 are adjustments to present circumstances where that summary procedure is appropriate.
[4] In this case, the proposed variation engages significant public safety concerns. Mr. JS is before the court on 15 alleged offences. They include:
- 13 OCT 23 Sexual Assault
- 13 OCT 23 Sexual Interference Under 16
- 13 OCT 23 Invitation to Sexual Touching
- 01 JUN 23 Sexual Assault
- 18 JAN 24 Sexual Assault
- 25 JAN 24 Sexual Assault
- 18 JAN 24 Assault with Choking
[5] JS’s current house arrest bail (15 JUL 24) includes conditions prohibiting him from contacting 5 persons. He’s prohibited from being within 300 metres of known places of residence, employment or education of those persons.
[6] He’s also prohibited from attending public parks, swimming areas and other locations.
[7] He’s prohibited from attending at any high school in York Region.
[8] He’s prohibited from being within 500 metres of Dr JM Dennison Secondary School in Newmarket. His movements are monitored by a GPS ankle bracelet.
[9] The proposed change would permit JS to be outside his home five days per week to attend a college program. It appears inconsistent with the public safety provisions of his existing bail.
[10] No doubt the Crown has reasons why they are jointly requesting this change, but the circumstances require explanation and submissions at a hearing before a judge could consider whether to approve the request. That is beyond the scope of the summary variation provision in s 519.1 so the application was dismissed.
KENKEL J.