USA v. Hillis, 2018 ONSC 5360
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America, Respondent
v.
Brady John Hillis, Applicant
HEARD: September 12, 2018
BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.
COUNSEL: B. Friesen, for the Respondent AG Canada
D. Gunn, for the Applicant Brady John Hillis
Endorsement On Application for Judicial Interim Release Pursuant to Section 18(1) of the Extradition Act S.C. 1999 c. 18
WARNING
A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING
UNDER S. 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA which will continue until the surrender or discontinuation of the Extradition Hearing to be held in this matter and further A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER S. 26 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT S.C. 1999 c. 18
1The Applicant, Brady John Hillis is facing a hearing leading to possible extradition to the United States of America. He is accused of committing three separate acts of sexual interference against three different minor children at a resort property on the territory of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa on or about June 22, 2018. He is facing several charges under the United States Federal Criminal Law. The precise particulars of those charges, for example what sections of the United States Federal Criminal Law are engaged is not known to the parties before this Court.
2On August 23, 2018, the Minister of Justice for Canada authorized the Attorney General for Canada to seek an order for committal for Mr. Hillis in order that he may be extradited to the United States. Accordingly the Attorney General sought and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Hillis pursuant to section 16 of the Extradition Act SC 1999 c. 18 (the “Act”). Mr. Hillis seeks his release from custody pending his extradition hearing pursuant to section 18 of the Act. By virtue of section 19 of the Act, the provisions of Part XVI of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) are engaged on this application. The Attorney General for Canada on behalf of the United States (the “USA”) opposes release on the primary and tertiary grounds. This is a reverse onus bail hearing. Mr. Hillis is required to show cause why his detention is not justified pending the completion of the extradition process.
Evidence of the USA
3Further to the USA’s request to extradite Mr. Hillis, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Minnesota provided a “Record of the Case for the Prosecution” (the “ROC”) to the Department of Justice on or about August 16, 2018. The ROC contained summaries of the expected evidence of 16 witnesses. Three witnesses were minor female children who claim they were inappropriately touched by Mr. Hillis. These children are referred to in the ROC as Jane Doe 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The expected testimony summary of four other witness who are related to Jane Doe 1’s is provided in the ROC. The expected testimony summary of three other witnesses who are related to Jane Doe 2 is provided in the ROC. The ROC contains the expected testimony summary of two witnesses unrelated to the complainant children who observed Mr. Hillis’ movements on June 22, 2018.
4The ROC also contains the expected testimony summary of three persons employed by the resort in security type positions. One in particular summarizes video security camera evidence allegedly of Mr. Hillis which purports to show his entering the resort property and then interacting with Jane Doe 1, 2 and 3 on June 22, 2018. Also provided in the ROC are expected testimony summaries of two American peace officers, one employed by Bureau of Indian Affairs on the Bois Forte Indian Reservation and one employed by the FBI.
5A summary of the allegations made regarding Jane Doe 1 (“JD1”) is as follows. JD1 is nine years old. JD1 and her two brothers, aged 11 and 10, were in the video arcade at the resort at around 8 pm. They were playing a particular game, when they were approached by a man, whom JD1 later identified as Mr. Hillis. He knelt down beside the children and began to engage them in conversation. The children ran out of money to play the games. JD1 was standing by herself near a machine when Mr. Hillis came over to her. She says he offered to give her money if she “let him touch her bum”. At the same time he ran his left hand up against her right leg. He then touched her buttock over top of her knee-length dress. JD1 and her two brothers ran out of the arcade. JD1 told her parents what happened. JD1’s mother went to the front desk to call the police. JD1’s father went with her to the pool area of the resort. JD1’s father confronted Mr. Hillis regarding his daughter’s allegations. Mr. Hillis denied he did anything wrong.
6The ROC contains a summary of video security camera surveillance tape of the arcade that night. The head of resort security claims there is video evidence showing Mr. Hillis in the vicinity of the three children showing an initial interaction between himself and JD1 as described by JD1. The security officer claims the video evidence then shows Mr. Hillis touching JD1’s leg and buttocks with his left hand.
7The ROC contains the expected testimony of an adult who is unrelated to JD1, who claims she saw Mr. Hillis in the arcade and in close proximity to three minor children.
8Jane Doe 2 (“JD2”) is seven years old. At about 8:30 pm on June 22, 2018 she was swimming in the resort pool with some of her siblings. She was wearing a two piece swimsuit. She went over to swim in the kiddie pool by herself. Mr. Hillis came over to sit on the edge of the pool with his feet in the water. He got up to get a towel to sit on. He went back to the edge of the pool and sat on the towel. Mr. Hillis asked JD2 to come over to him. He asked JD2 her name. He continued to talk to her while he put his arm under the water and slid his hand under the leg portion of her swim suit bottom. JD2 claims he touched her “private part” with his fingers. She felt scared and weird. JD2 claims she tried to move away but Mr. Hillis pulled her back. He then put his hand under her swimsuit top and touched her chest. JD2 pushed away and went into the big pool.
9JD2 told her sister what happened and pointed to Mr. Hillis as the man who did it. A cousin of JD2 took her to the front desk to report the incident. The head of security indicates there is surveillance tape showing Mr. Hillis sitting beside JD2 in the kiddie pool. The video shows the two interacting for about one minute. Then JD2 is shown jumping back in to the big pool.
10Jane Doe 3 was twelve years old on June 22, 2018. At about 8:40 pm she was swimming in the big pool at the resort with her friend. She noticed a male swimming close to her. She decided to race her friend to the other end of the pool. As she dove underwater she felt a hand touch her buttocks. She surfaced and asked her friend if she did it. She said she did not. She heard the male person who had been swimming close to them make a moaning sound. JD3 told her mother later about this. JD3 saw Mr. Hillis later in the resort but he was surrounded by security guards. Neither JD3 nor her mother told law enforcement about this incident on June 22, 2018.
11The head of security will testify that there is video showing Mr. Hillis reaching out with his left hand to touch the buttock of a female child as she swims by him in the pool. Immediately after that, JD1 and her father can be seen coming in to the pool area and confronting Mr. Hillis.
Plan for Release
12Mr. Hillis is 29 years old. He has been an OPP officer for three years. He is currently stationed in Kenora. He reported the allegations to his superiors on June 25, 2018. He was placed on administrative leave. He was asked and did report to the OPP station every day thereafter until his arrest on September 5, 2018.
13Mr. Hillis has no criminal record. He is married. He and his wife do not have any children. Mr. Hillis grew up in London, Ontario. He proposes to live with his parents in London pending resolution of the extradition matter. He makes the following specific proposals:
a. Obtain two sureties in the amount of $10,000 and $50,000;
b. To reside with his mother, Margaret Hillis, and father, William Hillis, at 91 Metcalfe Crescent, in London, Ontario;
c. To not move without permission of the court;
d. To remain within the province of Ontario;
e. To abide by a curfew that this Honourable Court sees fit;
f. To not contact any named complainants involved in the allegations;
g. To not have contact with any child under the age of 18, unless in the presence of a sober adult who is aware of these allegations;
h. To not attend any public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground, or community centre;
i. To not seek, obtain, or continue any employment or become a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
j. To not possess or consume any alcohol, drugs, including marijuana upon its legalization, or prescriptions drugs for which he does not have a prescription;
k. To deposit his passport with law enforcement prior to his release and to not obtain a new passport;
l. To personally report to a police station as often as this Honourable Court deems fit; and,
m. Any other conditions this Honourable Court deems necessary.
14Mr. Hillis recognizes there will be a need for a kind of interim condition which would govern his movement from Kenora to London if he was to be granted bail. He proposes to remain in the presence of his sureties to be driven back to London on or before Monday September 17, 2018. He as well will agree to report as required to the RCMP detachment in London located at 451 Talbot Street beginning on September 17, 2018. He will also surrender his OPP uniform to the Kenora detachment immediately if granted bail.
The Law and the Positions of the Parties on the Three Grounds for Detention
15It was agreed by the parties that the charges facing Mr. Hillis in the United States are analogous to charges of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Code. The justification for detention is found in the provisions of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code and include the primary grounds, which are to ensure his attendance in court; the secondary grounds, which are a consideration of the protection or safety of the public, including any substantial likelihood that he would commit further criminal offences or interfere with the administration of justice; and the tertiary grounds, which are to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Primary Grounds
16In assessing the primary grounds, the courts have established the following factors as being relevant:
Whether the accused has previously committed an offence of being unlawfully at large or breaching an undertaking or recognizance;
Is the accused a Canadian citizen;
Does the accused have significant roots in the community, including assets, family, employment/schooling;
Does the accused have an articulable connection to a foreign jurisdiction;
Does the accused have a passport;
Is there any evidence that the accused contemplated flight;
Does the accused’s criminal record or character suggest routine disregard for court orders;
Is there a real incentive for the accused to flee given the nature of the crime charged, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the length of sentence that could be imposed; and
Is the proposed release plan one which would reduce the risk of non-attendance for trial within tolerable limits?
17The USA argues Mr. Hillis is a flight risk. They point to the possible significant sentence he is facing should he be convicted, at least according to the letter from the Assistant United States Attorney who has requested Mr. Hillis’ extradition. USA refers to the decision of Bellamy J. in USA v. Ben Huu Dinh (2007) unreported where the Justice found that possible consequences of conviction are relevant to assessing risk of flight of an applicant for interim judicial release.
18Mr. Hillis submits he is not a flight risk. He has no connections to any other place other than Ontario. His sureties, all of whom reside in Southern Ontario, travelled to Kenora to attend this hearing. They have sufficient assets to support the proposed deposits. They are well aware of the nature of the allegations facing him.
19Counsel for Mr. Hillis notes the speed at which Mr. Hillis voluntarily reported the incidents which have led to the charges being laid in the United States. He reported them immediately after his return to Canada. He was ordered to report to the police station every day which he has done. He is prepared to surrender his passport. His only trips outside of Canada in the past two years have been to the United States. As a peace officer he is well aware of his obligations to attend court.
Secondary Ground
20The secondary ground is set out at section 515(10) (b) of the Criminal Code. It is directed at the issue of the safety of the public in general and witnesses in particular. The secondary ground does not consider whether the accused might commit a further offence or interfere with the administration of justice; there must be evidence to show that it is substantially likely that the accused would do so. The USA does not oppose bail on the secondary ground. I find therefore that Mr. Hillis’ plan is sufficient to protect the public from him committing a further offence or interfering with the administration of justice.
Tertiary Ground
21Section 515(10) (c) of the Criminal Code provides that detention is justified if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including:
i. The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case;
ii. The gravity of the offence;
iii. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used; and
iv. The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.
22The test is whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to the four factors listed above and whether, in light of all the circumstances, a reasonable member of the community would conclude that detention was both necessary and appropriate. No one factor standing alone will be sufficient to justify detention on this ground. It is the combined effect of all the factors that may lead to the conclusion that detention on this ground is justified.
23In the recent Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, the Court noted at para. 59 that one of the factors to be considered in a release hearing is any defence raised by the accused and that the judge presiding at the release hearing should, to the extent possible, consider the Crown’s position, both the strengths and weaknesses, as well as any defences that the defence may suggest. The court at paras. 68-71 made the following comments regarding the tertiary grounds:
68 Section 515(10)(c) could not be worded more clearly: it refers to “all the circumstances, including....” In my opinion, Parliament would have worded this provision differently (although I will not comment on the validity of such a wording) if it had intended a detention order to be automatic where the four listed circumstances weigh in favour of such an order. In fact, Parliament intended the opposite. As the Chief Justice stated in Hall, a justice dealing with an application for detention based on s. 515(10)(c) must consider all the relevant circumstances, but must focus particularly on the factors Parliament has specified: para. 41. The automatic detention argument also seems to be inconsistent with the following statement by the Chief Justice, at para. 41:
At the end of the day, the judge can only deny bail if satisfied that in view of these factors and related circumstances, a reasonable member of the community would be satisfied that denial is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
69 Moreover, the automatic detention argument disregards the fact that the test to be met under s. 515(10)(c) is whether the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. The four listed circumstances are simply the main factors to be balanced by the justice, together with any other relevant factors, in determining whether, in the case before him or her, detention is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice in the country. This is the provision’s purpose. Although the justice must consider all the circumstances of the case and engage in a balancing exercise, this is the ultimate question the justice must answer, and it must therefore guide him or her in making a determination. The argument that detention must automatically be ordered if the review of the four circumstances favours that result is incompatible with the balancing exercise required by s. 515(10)(c) and with the purpose of that exercise.
70 Finally, it is important not to overlook the fact that, in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception: Morales, at p. 728. To automatically order detention would be contrary to the “basic entitlement to be granted reasonable bail unless there is just cause to do otherwise” that is guaranteed in s. 11(e) of the Charter: Pearson, at p. 691. This entitlement rests in turn on the cornerstone of Canadian criminal law, namely the presumption of innocence that is guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter (Hall, at para. 13). These fundamental rights require the justice to ensure that interim detention is truly justified having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case.
71 Although I will not set out an exhaustive list of the circumstances relevant to the analysis required by s. 515(10)(c) Cr.C., I think it will be helpful to give a few examples. Section 515(10)(c)(iii) refers to the “circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence”. I would add that the personal circumstances of the accused (age, criminal record, physical or mental condition, membership in a criminal organization, etc.) may also be relevant. The justice might also consider the status of the victim and the impact on society of a crime committed against that person. In some cases, he or she might also take account of the fact that the trial of the accused will be held at a much later date.
24The USA argues that denial of bail is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. As a peace officer, Mr. Hillis cannot be seen as receiving preferential treatment. The USA notes that a consideration of the strength of the prosecution’s case in this matter goes to the strength of the case to extradite Mr. Hillis as opposed to the strength of the case he will face in the United States. However the USA did submit that the presence of video evidence validating the complaints of these youthful complainants would be of importance to any reasonable members of the public assessment of a decision not to detain Mr. Hillis pending the completion of the extradition process. Any time a person who has been entrusted with upholding and enforcing the law are themselves accused of breaking it, the USA submits heightens the concern that interim judicial release may bring the justice system into disrepute.
25The defence argues that Mr. Hillis should be released. He has faced up to the allegations by reporting immediately to his supervisors. He has a reasonable plan.
26Mr. Hillis has not been provided with the exact charges he is facing in the United States. Relying on the request for extradition letter provided by the USA, and the reference to a potential 30 year minimum sentence, counsel searched the United States Federal Criminal law to find examples of charges involving sexual assaults against minors that carry such a minimum. He could only locate one such reference. It was contained in Title 18-Crimes and Criminal Procedure ss 2241 c which reads:
(c) WITH CHILDREN—Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging) or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
27Mr. Hillis notes the requirement in that offence for the prosecution to prove the crossing of a state line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor. Mr. Hillis submits the evidence in the ROC shows no such intent. This is very important, when contrasted with the request for committal provided by the Minister which outlines that the comparable offence in Canada is one of sexual interference contrary to s. 151.
28Mr. Hillis submits his interim release would not undermine confidence in the administration of justice and he has satisfied the tertiary ground.
Decision
29Considering all the circumstances of this case to date, the submissions of counsel, and the overarching principles of the presumption of innocence I am convinced that Mr. Hillis has satisfied me on this hearing that his detention is no longer justified pending the completion of the extradition hearing.
30In my view, Mr. Hillis’ plan for release is very strong. I am confident he will attend court as required. I do not find on the evidence before me that he is a flight risk. I accept Mr. Hillis’ submission that he has no connections to any other jurisdiction. His conduct of dutifully reporting every day to his detachment since late June gives me confidence that he accepts the severity of what he is facing and is nevertheless prepared to abide by conditions and comply with his proposed plan. In this case I do not find that the fact he is now facing extradition is sufficient to convince me that this increases his risk of flight.
31On the primary ground, I find Mr. Hillis’s continued detention is not justified to ensure that he will attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.
The Secondary Grounds
As noted above, I am satisfied that Mr. Hillis’ detention would not be justified on this ground. The Tertiary Grounds
32Since the decision of the Supreme Court in R v. St-Cloud, it is clear that this ground is not to be considered sparingly or interpreted narrowly. It is not a residual ground. It is to be independently assessed and not considered only if the other two grounds are not satisfied.
33It requires the court to expressly deal with the four enumerated circumstances and then consider any other relevant circumstances.
The Strength of the Crown’s Case
34I accept that this is to be assessed as the strength of the case for extradition. In that context our court will consider the evidence through the lens of the analogous Canadian offence of sexual interference. Mr. Hillis concedes that there is sufficient evidence in the ROC of the elements of that offence for a reasonable instructed jury to reach a verdict of guilty on the Canadian charge of sexual interference, which is the standard for committal to trial (see USA v Ferras 2006 SCC 33, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77 at paras 46 and 68). The Crown therefore has a strong case on that standard.
The Gravity of the Offence
35It is not disputed Mr. Hillis is facing a serious charge as it involves an allegation of abuse, in public of vulnerable children.
The Circumstances Surrounding the Offence
36I agree with the submissions of the USA that the allegations in this matter are disturbing if not bizarre. Three separate touching incidents, in public spaces, against 3 very young children all occurring in a very short time frame are brazen and would be very concerning to the public. The fact that Mr. Hillis is a peace officer is also of some concern. However, the fact that no charges were initially laid, and that Mr. Hillis was driven off reserve and dumped at the side of a road, also raises questions as to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is perceived in the place it is alleged to have occurred.
Possible Result of Conviction
37This aspect of the matter gives me some considerable concern. I really have no idea what exactly Mr. Hillis will be facing should he be extradited. I agree with his submission that there is no evidence before the court at this time about the critical intent aspect of the particular American law, that Mr. Hillis might be charged under. Although Mr. Hillis’ does bear the onus in this matter, the fact that the Minister has categorized the offences at issue to being sexual interference, in our law a finding of guilt would result in a mandatory minimum reformatory sentence. This is significant but not anything close to the alleged thirty year sentence which was relied upon in the affidavit evidence submitted by the USA in this matter. I find that because I cannot determine precisely what result Mr. Hillis will be facing if extradited, this is a factor that militates in favour of his release, given the facts of this case.
Other Circumstances
38I consider Mr. Hillis’ plan for release as relevant under this particular aspect of consideration of the tertiary grounds. In this regard I am persuaded by the reasons for decision given by Trotter J. (as he then was) in the decision R v. Dang 2015 ONSC 4254. This decision considered the application of the decision of the Supreme Court in St-Cloud. At paragraph 58 Trotter J. states:
58 An accused person's release plan may be relevant to whether public confidence in the administration of justice is capable of being maintained: see R v. B.(A.) (2006), 2006 CanLII 2765 (ON SC), 204 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. S.C.J.), at p. 501. This is explicitly recognized in the newly enacted amendment (S.C. 2012, c. 1) to s. 29(2)(c) of the YCJA. A reasonable and knowledgeable member of the community may take a different view of a case in which an accused person charged with a violent offence is released into the community with virtually no supervision, compared to a situation where a strict plan has been put in place to monitor the accused. The plan goes to the core of s. 515(10)(b), but it may also impact on the application of s. 515(10)(c). The bail decision does not involve a stark choice between absolute freedom on one hand, and detention on the other. Realistically, it is a choice between release on conditions and detention. I see nothing wrong with this reality being reflected ins. 515(10)(c).
39In my view, Mr. Hillis’ plan requires him to be on strict conditions. It strikes an appropriate balance between the public’s continuing right to be protected, the administration of justice to be respected by adherence to its process and the confidence that Mr. Hillis will participate in the extradition process such that Canada may honour her obligations to her extradition partner the USA. I am also keenly aware of Mr. Hillis’ constitutional right to seek bail. I am keenly aware that, in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception.
40As such, I find that confidence in the administration of justice will be maintained by providing interim judicial release on conditions proposed by Mr. Hillis, including those amendments to the conditions as proposed by the USA during its argument in the alternative.
41Accordingly Mr. Hillis is to be released on the following conditions:
a. Margaret Helen Hillis shall be surety without deposit in the amount of $50,000;
b. Kirsten Mellisa Hillis shall be surety without deposit in the amount of $10,000.00;
c. William Willamson Hillis shall be a surety for Mr. Hillis in the amount of $1,000.00 without deposit;
d. From September 12, 2018 at 4 pm. until 9 am on September 17, 2018 Brady John Hillis shall remain in the presence of at least one of Margaret Helen Hillis, William Williamson Hillis or Kirsten Mellisa Hillis. He shall make arrangements to travel by car from Kenora Ontario to London Ontario during that period. So long as he is in the presence of at least one of these named sureties he may travel at whatever time is convenient;
e. On or after September 17, 2018 Mr. Hillis shall reside with his mother, Margaret Hillis, and father, William Hillis, at 91 Metcalfe Crescent, in London, Ontario;
f. Following September 17, 2018 Mr. Hillis shall not move without permission of the court or consent of the Attorney General of Canada;
g. He shall remain within the province of Ontario;
h. He shall remain at the residence at 91 Metcalfe Crescent, 7 days a week from the hours of 11 pm until 6 am except in the case of medical emergencies;
i. At all other times if away from the residence at 91 Metcalfe Crescent he shall be in the presence of at least one of his sureties;
j. He shall see to it that a landline telephone is installed at 91 Metcalfe Crescent and as soon as practicable and must be installed in any event on or before October 31, 2018 and shall answer that landline during the curfew hours of 11 pm to 6 am and will provide the landline telephone number forthwith upon receipt;
k. To come to the door at 91 Metcalfe Crescent during curfew hours if the RCMP conducts a curfew check;
l. To submit to any searches by police of any vehicles you are found in;
m. On or after September 24, 2018 Mr. Hillis shall report every Monday at a time to be determined by the RCMP at their offices located at 451 Talbot Street in London Ontario;
n. To return his OPP uniform and any other official articles identifying Mr. Hillis as a peace officer to the Kenora detachment of the OPP on or before September 14, 2018;
o. To ensure Margaret Hillis, William Hillis and Kirsten Hillis execute any surety documents required of them by the Attorney General for Canada;
p. To not contact any complainants, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 named in the ROC;
q. To not contact any of the other witnesses named in the ROC except through counsel;
r. To not have contact with any child under the age of 18, unless in the presence of a sober adult who is aware of these allegations;
s. To not attend any public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground, or community centre;
t. To not seek, obtain, or continue any employment or become a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
u. To not possess or consume any alcohol, drugs, including marijuana upon its legalization, or prescriptions drugs for which Mr. Hillis does not have a prescription;
v. To forthwith deposit his passport, Visa’s or any documents allowing travel outside of Canada with the RCMP or the counsel for the Attorney General for Canada prior to his release from custody on September 12, 2018 and to not obtain a new passport;
w. Not to possess any firearm, ammunition or explosive substances or any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code;
x. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick
DATE: September 12, 2018
CITATION: R v. Tuesday, 2018 ONSC 5360
COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-55-BR
DATE: 2018-09-12
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: The Attorney General of Canada on
Behalf of the United States of America
v.
Brady John Hillis
HEARD: September 12, 2018
COUNSEL: B. Friesen, for the Attorney General of Canada, Respondent
D. Gunn, for the Applicant
ENDORSEMENT ON BAIL APPLICATION
WARNING
A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING
UNDER S. 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Fitzpatrick J.
DATE: September 12, 2018
/sf