P. Giancaterino

The Crown brought an application for the forfeiture of a $60,000 cash bail deposit and various sums pledged by sureties after the accused breached his recognizance by continuing to traffic drugs and commit firearms offences.

Prior to the hearing, resolutions were reached regarding the sureties, resulting in $65,000 in forfeitures.

The accused subsequently died in prison.

The estate of the accused sought relief from forfeiture of the cash deposit, requesting that $30,000 be returned to support the accused's children.

The court found that the accused had shown total disregard for his bail conditions and that the estate failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need.

The court ordered the full $60,000 cash deposit forfeited.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and related offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained inaccurate information, material omissions, and relied on an untested confidential informant, thereby violating his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the ITO, including amplification evidence from cross-examinations, and concluded there were no intentional misstatements meant to mislead the authorizing Justice.

The court found that the cumulative evidence, including police surveillance and informant tips, provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied for bail review while facing robbery and manslaughter charges.

He argued that material changes in circumstances justified reconsideration of prior detention orders, including restricted access to disclosure in custody, new DNA evidence concerning a co‑accused, and an enhanced release plan involving substantial cash deposits, sureties, and potential electronic monitoring.

The court held that the proposed release plan was largely unchanged and that the new DNA evidence relating to the co‑accused was not materially relevant to the accused’s circumstances.

However, the court found the evidence concerning the accused’s limited access to disclosure in detention troubling and potentially relevant to the balancing of interests on the tertiary ground.

The bail review was adjourned to permit correctional authorities to address disclosure access issues before a final determination.