The accused, charged with multiple offences including sexual assault and assault against an intimate partner, applied for release from custody after his trial had commenced but was adjourned due to a conflict of interest issue involving his defence counsel.
The accused argued that his continued detention was unjustified and sought a review under sections 520, 523, and 525 of the Criminal Code.
The court held that section 525 did not apply because the trial had commenced, and section 520 did not apply for the same reason.
However, the court assumed jurisdiction under section 523(2)(a) to consider vacating the previous detention order.
Applying the framework from St-Cloud, the court found no error of law in the initial detention order and concluded that there was no material change in circumstances.
The court held that the proposed release plan did not sufficiently mitigate the substantial likelihood that the accused would re-offend or interfere with the administration of justice, and dismissed the application for release.
