The appellant was convicted under s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code for twice failing to present himself at the door of his residence when police attended to verify compliance with his bail curfew condition.
The central issue on appeal was whether the mens rea for the failure-to-comply offence is to be assessed on a subjective or objective standard.
The Court held unanimously that the Crown must establish subjective fault, requiring proof that the accused breached the bail condition knowingly or recklessly.
The Court further articulated that bail conditions must be imposed with restraint, tailored to the individual accused's risks, and subjected to rigorous review by all participants in the bail system.
Because the courts below applied an objective standard of fault, the convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered on the two counts of failing to attend at the door.
