SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
ISAIAH MORRIS
REASONS ON BAIL REVIEW
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J.R. SPROAT
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 in Owen Sound, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Mr. G. Brotherston Counsel for the Provincial Crown
Ms. N. Klein Counsel for Isaiah Morris
(i)
Table of Contents
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
L E G E N D
(ph) – indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically. [sic] – indicates preceding word has been intentionally left in the original form.
Transcript Ordered: 22nd February, 2019
Transcript Completed: 17th March, 2019
Ordering Party Notified: 17th March, 2019
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND, 2019:
SPROAT, J. - Orally:
Introduction
Introduction
All right. First of all I would like to thank the Crown and defence counsel for their submissions which I thought were clear and comprehensive. My Reasons are as follows.
Mr. Morris is charged with kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement and attempted murder. Mr. Morris applies for a review of the order of Charyna J.P. dated December 20, 2018, detaining him in custody on the secondary and tertiary ground. This was a Crown onus case.
Standard of Review
In R. v. Dang 2015 ONSC 4254, [2015] O.J. No. 3552, Trotter J. stated:
29 As far as ss. 520 and 521 are concerned, the Supreme Court of Canada has clarified the proper approach in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 [St-Cloud]. There is no point in re-tracing the jurisprudential debate that led to the need for the Supreme Court’s intervention on this issue. The Court held that ss. 520 and 521 do not grant a reviewing judge an open-ended discretion to substitute
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
his or her decision for that of the bail judge. Writing for the Court, Wagner J. identified three circumstances in which a reviewing court may intervene (at para. 121):
It will be appropriate to intervene if the justice had erred in law. It will be appropriate for the reviewing judge to exercise this power if the impugned decision was clearly inappropriate, that is, if the justice who rendered it gave excessive weight to one relevant factor or insufficient weight to another. The reviewing judge therefore does not have the power to interfere with the initial decision simply because he or she would have weighed the relevant factors differently. I reiterate that the relevant factors are not limited to the ones expressly specified in s. 515(10)(c) Cr.C. Finally, where new evidence is submitted by the accused or the prosecutor as permitted by ss. 520 and 521 Cr.C., the reviewing judge may vary the initial decision if that evidence shows a material and relevant change in the circumstances of the case.
37 St-Cloud urges that bail review judges (at least those making decision under ss. 520 and 521) observe the same deferential approach to first instance bail decisions as appellate courts employ in sentencing cases. In the absence of some demonstrable problem with a justice’s handling or balancing of relevant factors, a reviewing judge should not intervene on this basis.
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE
Overview of Evidence
To put the legal arguments in context I will provide a brief summary of the Crown evidence.
Mr. Singh, the victim, and the co-accused Gandhi worked together. Mr. Singh sometimes drove Mr. Gandhi to work and on the day in question Mr. Gandhi asked if Mr. Singh would give his friend, who turned out to be Mr. Morris, a ride as well. Mr. Singh agreed. On the way to work Mr. Morris asked Mr. Singh to stop the car so he could have a smoke. After the car was stopped Mr. Singh was stabbed multiple times in the back. He was then dragged into the back seat. The car was driven by Mr. Gandhi from Brampton to Orangeville to two banks there and then on to Shelburne to a Petro Canada station and then ultimately on to a remote location in Grey County.
During this trip the victim, Mr. Singh, was in the back seat with Mr. Morris. Mr. Gandhi got out of the vehicle to obtain, or attempt to obtain, funds at the two banks in Orangeville leaving Mr. Morris alone in the car with Mr. Singh. All of that is on video. The stop at the gas station is also on video. Mr. Gandhi purchased and filled a gas can and also purchased a lighter. Again, Mr. Morris remained in the car with Mr. Singh.
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
They then went to the remote location. Mr. Morris, unlike at least on the evidence before the court Mr. Gandhi, had a connection to this part of the world, having lived periodically at a family residence in Dundalk. Mr. Singh was taken forcibly out of the car, pushed down into a snowy ditch where he pretended to be unconscious. It appears that he was thinking that Mr. Morris and Mr. Gandhi would take his car and leave. Instead, on his own admission to the police, Mr. Morris came and apparently believing that Mr. Singh was unconscious, poured gas on him. Mr. Singh decided that he had better run for it. He was chased but got to a house nearby where the occupant called 9-1-1. The police attended and a dog was able to track Mr. Morris from the home where the resident called 9-1-1 to a location about two kilometers away. And in large part Mr. Morris, in a statement to the police after being cautioned and speaking to counsel, admitted his involvement in this sequence of events but suggested that he was under duress.
Was it an Error to Admit Evidence of the Statement Given by the Co-Accused Gandhi?
Was it an Error to Admit Evidence of the Statement Given by the Co-Accused Gandhi?
The Justice of the Peace admitted evidence of a statement given by the co-accused which would not have been admissible as evidence against Mr. Morris at a joint trial. I agree with the Crown’s
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
submission that given the broad latitude to admit evidence in a bail hearing such a statement was admissible. I note that a statement by a co-accused was admitted and referred to without comment by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Laframboise, 2005 CanLII 63758 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 5785. The Crown also refers to the book The Law of Bail in Canada by Trotter J.A. (current to November 8, 2018) which states:
As discussed at the outset of this chapter, in an effort to ensure swift justice for those accused persons detained and held for a bail hearing, a certain level of procedural informality is required. This informality translates into the relaxation of certain rules of evidence at a bail hearing. In R. v. Wilson (1997), Baynton J. said:
The rules of evidence applicable to a trial do not apply to judicial interim release hearings. These proceedings by their very nature must in most cases be conducted summarily and on short notice. If the rigid procedures of a trial have to be met, the result will be delay, inconvenience, and additional expense, and the spirit and intent of the provisions will be defeated.
In any event, I do not see the reference to this evidence as significant to the decision under review. There was a lot of evidence either on
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
video or in Mr. Morris’ own statement that implicates him. As I mentioned, Mr. Morris admits to pouring gasoline on Mr. Singh. The additional hearsay information as to what Gandhi said to the police only serves to provide a balanced context. The Justice of the Peace became aware that both accused point the finger at the other and the Justice of the Peace did not have the erroneous view that Mr. Morris had provided a more favourable description of events which had not been contradicted. I do not view Mr. Gandhi’s statement as adding anything significant to the strength of the Crown case.
Secondary Ground
Secondary Ground
In their submissions, I took it to be essentially common ground that the Justice of the Peace had correctly identified the factors that should be considered and that she had reviewed evidence that was both favourable and unfavourable to Mr. Morris.
The Justice of the Peace commented on the random nature of this offence in terms of the selection of the victim. Mr. Singh was not known to Mr. Morris and any financial motive appeared to be insignificant. The Justice of the Peace made reference to the fact that it was relevant to consider the stability of Mr. Morris and his
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
danger to the public. This was an inexplicable random attack which certainly raises a real concern of the likelihood of Mr. Morris committing further offences and, if so, the severity of those offences. In R. v. Budge, [2012] O.J. No. 2538 (ONSC), Durno J. stated:
59 Moving next to the secondary ground which states:
Detention in custody is justified where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances, including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice;
60 The factors to be considered on this ground include: whether the applicant has a criminal record and if so, for what offences, the sentence imposed, the dates of the entries. Is the applicant currently subject to any court orders? Are there outstanding charges and, if so, what are the offences? What is the nature of the current charges? What is the strength of the evidence? Does the applicant have legitimate employment to go to? What is the plan for release? Who
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
are the sureties? What are the amounts proposed? Are there concerns based on the accused person’s background and/or personality or as Justice Trotter puts it in his text, are there concerns about the stability of the person? Finally, whether there are concerns for interference with the administration of justice.
In our case, on this evidence, there are certainly concerns about the stability of Mr. Morris. On the evidence, the Justice of the Peace was certainly entitled to conclude that the Crown had satisfied its onus to establish the secondary ground.
Tertiary Ground
In R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] S.C.J. No. 27, at paragraph 88 Wagner J. stated:
In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered.
I certainly see a basis upon which the Justice of the Peace could find that the tertiary ground had been established. This was a very violent crime.
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
There appears to be overwhelming video evidence and admissions and I do regard the victim as vulnerable having been lured by two men, attacked from behind and taken to a rural location.
The Evaluation of the Sureties
The Evaluation of the Sureties
For the sake of completeness I will address this issue.
The proposed sureties were the mother, grandmother and grandfather of Mr. Morris. The proposal was essentially for house arrest bail conditions with Mr. Morris always having to be in the company of a surety.
The Justice of the Peace had the distinct advantage in watching and listening as the proposed sureties gave evidence. The grandfather and grandmother described Mr. Morris as always being “a good boy” who played video games and kept to himself. The assessment of the Justice of the Peace was that both of them “lacked the capacity to understand the nature and the terms of the seriousness of the offence and to be an effective supervisor”. Obviously the mother could not implement the house arrest plan by herself.
Again, these were findings that were certainly open to the Justice of the Peace.
Regina v. Isaiah Morris
Reasons on Bail Review
Conclusion
Conclusion
As a result, I must dismiss the detention review.
MATTER CONCLUDES
Form 2
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
Evidence Act (subsection 5(2))
I, Linda J. Thompson, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording; Her Majesty the Queen v. Isaiah Morris, in the Superior Court of Justice, 611 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, on 22nd February, 2019, taken from the Recording (1011_crtrm#302_20190221_093806__10_SPROATJ.dcr) which has been certified in Form 1.