COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-0171-00BR
DATE: 2019-12-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty the Queen
A. Sadler and A. Brown, for the Crown (Respondent)
Crown (Respondent)
- and -
Marshall Hardy-Fox
M. Hargadon, for the Accused (Applicant)
Accused (Applicant)
HEARD: December 10 & 11, 2019, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
WARNING
A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING
UNDER S. 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
517 (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as
(a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or
(b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Failure to comply
(2) Every person who fails, without lawful excuse, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Mr. Justice W. D. Newton
Reasons on Application for Bail Review
Overview
[1] This is an application brought on behalf of Marshall Hardy-Fox for an order granting him judicial interim release in respect of the charges of kidnapping, contrary to s. 279 (1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code and first-degree murder, contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2] Mr. Hardy-Fox surrendered himself into custody on March 3, 2019. Section 522(1) of the Criminal Code provides that where the accused is charged with murder, the bail hearing must be before a Superior Court Justice. Section 522(2) provides that a person charged with murder must be detained in custody unless that person shows cause why their detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of s. 515(10).
[3] The Crown provided a summary of the allegations against Mr. Hardy-Fox through the testimony of one of the investigating officers, Detective Constable Bradley, a surveillance video purportedly showing a portion of the kidnapping and, on consent, a 22-page Crown brief synopsis.
[4] Affidavits were filed from Mr. Hardy-Fox and the three proposed sureties, his mother, father and grandmother. The sureties also testified. Stephen Tan, a representative from Recovery Science Corporation testified via Court Call about GPS monitoring.
Summary of the Allegations
[5] In the early afternoon of February 24, 2019, a 911 call was received about a discovery of a body in an isolated industrial area in Thunder Bay.
[6] The next day, using fingerprints, the police identified the deceased as Lee Chiodo of Thunder Bay. Mr. Chiodo had been shot in the back of the head. A single 40 caliber shell casing was found at the scene.
[7] The police ascertained that Mr. Chiodo had been lured to Mario’s Bowl on February 23, 2019 by a Facebook message from Crystal Leduc.
[8] Surveillance video from Mario’s Bowl at about 11:20 p.m. on February 23, 2019 shows Mr. Chiodo running and attempting to evade a black male inside Mario’s Bowl. Police have identified that black male as Musab Saboon. After a confrontation with Mr. Chiodo, Mr. Saboon placed his right hand in a pocket gesturing that he was holding something. Police believe Mr. Saboon was holding a handgun. Mr. Chiodo then left with Mr. Saboon.
[9] A witness observed Mr. Saboon entering the east side of Mario’s Bowl and telling another male to go to the west side of the building. The witness observed Mr. Saboon exiting Mario’s Bowl with Mr. Chiodo and then all three males entering a dark sedan. This witness felt that Mr. Chiodo had no option but to enter the vehicle as Mr. Saboon was blocking him from leaving.
[10] With the assistance of the public and others, Mr. Saboon, was identified as a drug trafficker who used the nicknames of “Omar” and “Tony.” The police located Mr. Saboon at 9 Trillium Way, Thunder Bay. Witnesses identified Mr. Saboon’s associate as “Chinese Dave,” David Hui.
[11] Mr. Hui was arrested for first-degree murder on March 2, 2019. Mr. Hui told the police that, on February 23, 2019, he, Mr. Saboon and the accused, Mr. Hardy-Fox went to Mario’s Bowl and that Mr. Saboon entered and returned with Mr. Chiodo. He said that Mr. Chiodo was driven to an undisclosed location and dropped off.
[12] On March 3, 2019 the police sought and received a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Hardy-Fox. Mr. Hardy-Fox voluntarily surrendered to the police that day and, within an hour of his arrest, provided a cautioned statement.
[13] The following synopsis of the statement, taken from the application record of the applicant is largely undisputed:
Mr. Hardy-Fox stated that he met Messrs. Hui and Saboon on February 23, 2019, and was asked to drive them to Mario’s Bowl to collect Mr. Chiodo and, more specifically, to collect money from him. He stated that he was the driver. He admitted to exiting the vehicle and running around the back of the bowling alley in search of Mr. Chiodo. He [did] these things in exchange for drugs that were to be supplied by Mr. Saboon, specifically crack cocaine. He was never in fact paid.
He was told by Mr. Hui to drive to the end of 108^th^ Ave. He admitted that during the drive, Mr. Chiodo was pleading for his life, and Mr. Saboon was demanding money from him. Upon arrival, Messrs. Saboon, Hui and [Chiodo] left the car while Mr. Hardy-Fox remained inside. He heard a single loud sound, like a cap gun. Thereafter Messrs. Saboon and Hui got back in the vehicle, stated that they were going to make Mr. Chiodo run home. He selected the route by which Mr. Chiodo was transported to Mission Island, and provided the details of the route to the police.
He stated that he did not know that Mr. Chiodo had been shot, that he did not touch him, and that he did not know that Mr. Saboon had a gun. He was scared for his life. He returned with Messrs. Hui and Saboon to 9 Trillium Way, the residence of his girlfriend. Nothing was said during the drive back. He collected his girlfriend, left the residence, and went into hiding out of fear that Messrs. Hui and Saboon would kill him.
Mr. Hardy-Fox was visibly shocked when he was told that Mr. Chiodo had been shot in the head. He was in tears at the end of the interview, apologizing to Mr. Chiodo’s family for not having done something to save his life….
[14] Mr. Hardy-Fox stated that he only met Mr. Hui and Mr. Saboon that day. Other witnesses indicate that Mr. Saboon was staying at Mr. Hardy-Fox’s girlfriend’s place, 9 Trillium Way, for “a while.” Mr. Saboon’s car was rented in Barrie about a month prior.
The Applicant
[15] Mr. Hardy-Fox is 27 years old. He does not have a criminal record. He deposed that he has resided at 9 Trillium Way, Thunder Bay for the past three years. He deposed that he was addicted to crack cocaine at the time of the events leading to these charges. He stated that he used crack cocaine for the first time about three months before he was arrested and was introduced to crack cocaine by his girlfriend.
[16] His plan of release includes living with his grandmother whom he respects “greatly.” He deposed that his grandmother is of “such significance” in his life that he asked his lawyer to bring him to his grandmother’s home so he could say “goodbye” to her prior to surrendering to police.
The Sureties
[17] The proposed sureties are Mr. Hardy-Fox’s mother, father, and grandmother. Because both parents’ work require travel outside the city of Thunder Bay, it is proposed that Mr. Hardy-Fox reside with his grandmother.
[18] His grandmother or “Kookum,” Sheba Fox, is 75 years old. She resides by herself in a home that she rents. She works, full-time, as a receptionist for Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services which is an organization that administers services for First Nations individuals on behalf of Legal Aid Ontario. She is regarded as an elder at her workplace. She earns approximately $40,000 annually and is prepared to sign a bond for $5,000 to secure her obligations as a surety. She has acted as a surety before. She is the eldest of her family and has four children, eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. She describes her relationship to Mr. Hardy-Fox as “close.” While in custody, she has visited him when possible, once per week. Although she acknowledges that it would be difficult to do, she testified that she would call the police on her grandson if required to do so “for his own sake.” She testified that she had to call the police on her son in the past. In cross-examination, she acknowledged that she was not aware that her grandson had a drug problem although she knew that his girlfriend did. Ms. Fox does not have a criminal record.
[19] Michael Fox is the accused’s father. Mr. Fox is a self-employed consultant. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a Master of Arts in Business Administration. His business focuses on Indigenous business and economic development and project financing. He travels regularly outside of Thunder Bay. He earns approximately $200,000 annually and is prepared to pledge a bond of $50,000 to secure his obligations as a security. He will maintain regular contact with his son, personally, when in Thunder Bay, and by telephone otherwise. He has visited his son while in custody and believes that his son has been honest and candid with him. He is confident that his son will follow his rules and the rules imposed by his mother and grandmother. Like Ms. Fox, he was aware that his son’s girlfriend had problems with drug abuse but was not aware that his son also had problems.
[20] Corinne Fox is the accused’s mother. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and a Master of Arts in Social Work. Ms. Fox is registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and is in private practice, providing counseling to First Nations clients in Thunder Bay, remote First Nation communities and through organizations such as Sioux Lookout First Nation’s Health Authority. Because of her social work and training experience, she believes that she can provide counseling and assistance to her son. Like Mr. Fox, her profession requires her to travel outside of Thunder Bay often. She is also prepared to pledge $5,000 to secure her obligations as a surety. Given the role of “Kookums,” or grandmothers in Indigenous culture she is confident that her son will abide by the conditions set by his grandmother. Like others, while she was aware of the issues that her son’s girlfriend had with drugs, she was not aware that he had any difficulty with “hard” drugs.
Remote Monitoring via GPS
[21] Stephen Tan, of Recovery Science Corporation (RSC), testified about radiofrequency and GPS monitoring as an assist in ensuring compliance with bail conditions. In addition to his testimony, filed as part of the application record were correspondence from Mr. Tan and written summaries of the monitoring programs. Since 2010, RSC has monitored over 700 judicial interim releases and is currently monitoring over 170 accused on bail. The evidence outlined how the monitoring bracelets are attached to the accused’s ankle and monitored. The evidence also outlined how issues with monitoring and compliance were reported to police.
The Law
The Right to Bail
[22] In R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, Wagner J. (as he then was) reiterated and confirmed the fundamental principles regarding the law of bail in Canada:
[1] The right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause is an essential element of an enlightened criminal justice system. It entrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage of the criminal trial process and safeguards the liberty of accused persons.
[4] The “ladder principle”, which is codified in s. 515(3) of the Code, requires a justice or a judge to impose the least onerous form of release on an accused unless the Crown shows why that should not be the case.
[23] The ladder principle was set out at para. 67 of Antic:
[67] Therefore, the following principles and guidelines should be adhered to when applying the bail provisions in a contested hearing:
(a) Accused persons are constitutionally presumed innocent, and the corollary to the presumption of innocence is the constitutional right to bail.
(b) Section 11(e) guarantees both the right not to be denied bail without just cause and the right to bail on reasonable terms.
(c) Save for exceptions, an unconditional release on an undertaking is the default position when granting release: s. 515(1).
(d) The ladder principle articulates the manner in which alternative forms of release are to be imposed. According to it, “release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and, having regard to the [statutory criteria for detention], on the least onerous grounds”: Anoussis, at para. 23. This principle must be adhered to strictly.
(e) If the Crown proposes an alternative form of release, it must show why this form is necessary. The more restrictive the form of release, the greater the burden on the accused. Thus, a justice of the peace or a judge cannot impose a more restrictive form of release unless the Crown has shown it to be necessary having regard to the statutory criteria for detention.
(f) Each rung of the ladder must be considered individually and must be rejected before moving to a more restrictive form of release. Where the parties disagree on the form of release, it is an error of law for a justice or a judge to order a more restrictive form of release without justifying the decision to reject the less onerous forms.
(g) A recognizance with sureties is one of the most onerous forms of release. A surety should not be imposed unless all the less onerous forms of release have been considered and rejected as inappropriate.
(h) It is not necessary to impose cash bail on accused persons if they or their sureties have reasonably recoverable assets and are able to pledge those assets to the satisfaction of the court to justify their release. A recognizance is functionally equivalent to cash bail and has the same coercive effect. Thus, under s. 515(2)(d) or s. 515(2)(e), cash bail should be relied on only in exceptional circumstances in which release on a recognizance with sureties is unavailable.
(i) When such exceptional circumstances exist and cash bail is ordered, the amount must not be set so high that it effectively amounts to a detention order, which means that the amount should not be beyond the readily available means of the accused and his or her sureties. As a corollary to this, the justice or judge is under a positive obligation, when setting the amount, to inquire into the ability of the accused to pay. The amount of cash bail must be no higher than necessary to satisfy the concern that would otherwise warrant detention and proportionate to the means of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
(j) Terms of release imposed under s. 515(4) may “only be imposed to the extent that they are necessary” to address concerns related to the statutory criteria for detention and to ensure that the accused can be released.^[[5]]^ They must not be imposed to change an accused person’s behaviour or to punish an accused person.
Justification for Detention
[24] As noted, in this case the onus is on Mr. Hardy-Fox. Mr. Hardy-Fox must show cause why his detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code:
Justification for detention in custody
(10) For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;
(b) 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; and
(c) 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.
[25] Subsections 515(a), (b), and (c) are commonly referred to as the “primary,” “secondary,” and “tertiary” grounds.
[26] In R. v. St. Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328 (S.C.C.), at para. 87, Wagner J. summarized the essential principles that must guide a justice in applying s. 515(10)(c), the tertiary ground, as follows:
▪ Section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code does not create a residual ground for detention that applies only where the first two grounds for detention ((a) and (b)) are not satisfied. It is a distinct ground that itself provides a basis for ordering the pre-trial detention of an accused.
▪ Section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code must not be interpreted narrowly (or applied sparingly) and should not be applied only in rare cases or exceptional circumstances or only to certain types of crimes.
▪ The four circumstances listed in s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code are not exhaustive.
▪ A court must not order detention automatically even where the four listed circumstances support such a result.
▪ The court must instead consider all the circumstances of each case, paying particular attention to the four listed circumstances.
▪ The question whether a crime is "unexplainable" or "unexplained" is not a criterion that should guide the analysis.
▪ No single circumstance is determinative. The justice must consider the combined effect of all the circumstances of each case to determine whether detention is justified.
▪ This involves balancing all the relevant circumstances. At the end of this balancing exercise, the ultimate question to be asked by the court is whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. This is the test to be met under s. 515(10)(c).
▪ To answer this question, the court must adopt the perspective of the "public", that is, the perspective of a reasonable person who is properly informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case. However, this person is not a legal expert and is not able to appreciate the subtleties of the various defences that are available to the accused.
▪ This reasonable person's confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined not only if a court declines to order detention where detention is justified having regard to the circumstances of the case, but also if it orders detention where detention is not justified.
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.
Positions of the Parties
Mr. Hardy-Fox
[27] Counsel for Mr. Hardy-Fox argues that Mr. Hardy-Fox has clearly met his onus with respect to the primary and secondary grounds given that Mr. Hardy-Fox has no criminal record and that the sureties, who are pledging a significant portion of their worth, can be trusted to fulfill their obligations.
[28] With respect to the tertiary ground, counsel acknowledge that these are serious offences, murder being the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, and that, if convicted, Mr. Hardy-Fox will receive a life sentence. Counsel notes the surrender and the confession to police immediately. In the circumstances of this case, counsel for Mr. Hardy-Fox argues that a properly informed reasonable person’s confidence in the administration of justice would not be undermined by Mr. Hardy-Fox’s release since he has no prior criminal record, given the strength of the sureties and their significant pledges and the very strict release conditions proposed.
The Crown
[29] While primarily concerned with the tertiary ground, the Crown also raises some issues with respect to the primary and secondary grounds and the limitations of remote monitoring in addressing these concerns.
[30] The Crown directed me to several cases dealing with remote monitoring technology. The cases of R. v. Hammoe, 2016 ONSC 1790 and R. v. Ayadurai, [2013] O.J. No. 5265 emphasize that ankle monitoring is “reactive” and, therefore, not always sufficient to alleviate secondary ground concerns. The case of R. v. Young, [2013] O.J. No. 3986 demonstrates that ankle monitoring is of little assistance when the accused is known not to abide by the conditions set by his sureties. Finally, R. v. Sotomayor, 2014 ONSC 500 underscores the electronic monitoring is not a “primary ground panacea” as it does not prevent absconding.
[31] The Crown characterizes its case as a very strong, particularly with respect to the kidnapping charge and argues that the public’s confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined were Mr. Hardy-Fox released given the brutality of this offence, the recognized violence associated with the drug trade, and the damage that the drug trade is doing to the citizens of this region.
Analysis
The Primary and Secondary Ground
[32] Given the lack of criminal record and the strength of the sureties and their pledges, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Hardy-Fox will attend court as required and will not commit a criminal offence or interfere with the proper administration of justice if released.
[33] What has been described as the “pull of bail” or the “real effective force” of bail is that the accused will comply with his conditions of release “rather than subject his nearest and dearest who has gone surety for him to undue pain and discomfort:” See G.T. Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada, loose-leaf, 3^rd^ ed. (Toronto: Thompson Reuters Canada Limited, 2019) at p. 7-12; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Horvath, 2009 ONCA 732 at para. 40.
[34] I am satisfied, based on the evidence of the sureties, that they will comply with their obligations and, particularly, not fail to contact authorities if Mr. Hardy-Fox does not comply with the conditions of his release. Their pledges are significant. I am satisfied that the “pull of bail” is sufficiently strong in this case. I accept that Mr. Hardy-Fox has a sufficiently strong and close relationship with his “Kookum” and will not jeopardize her or his mother or his father as sureties.
The Tertiary Ground
[35] Is it necessary to detain Mr. Hardy-Fox until his trial to maintain confidence in the administration of justice?
[36] Murder and kidnapping are grave offences. The apparent circumstances of the offence – an execution by gunshot to the back of the head for a drug debt, the dumping of Mr. Chiodo’s body, all in the context of the drug trade – are brutal and repugnant. If convicted, Mr. Hardy-Fox will be sentenced to life imprisonment.
[37] The evidence is not, however, at this stage, clear as to what role Mr. Hardy-Fox had in the murder. And, as noted, although Mr. Hardy-Fox has the onus on this application, that onus does not eliminate the presumption of innocence or his otherwise constitutional right to reasonable bail.
[38] As St. Cloud directs, I must balance all relevant circumstances and ask myself whether Mr. Hardy-Fox detention, before his guilt is determined, is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Relevant circumstances include the strength of the bail plan.
[39] In this case, I am satisfied, as stated, that the proposed sureties will comply with their obligations and I am satisfied that the “pull of bail” is sufficiently strong in this case.
[40] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person who is “properly informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case” (St. Cloud at para. 87), including Mr. Hardy-Fox’s surrender and cooperation with the police, the strength of the sureties and the strictness of the release plan as outlined below, will not lose confidence in the administration of justice. The release plan is effectively “house arrest.” Mr. Hardy-Fox must remain in his residence unless in the presence of one of the sureties. Regardless, he is subject to a curfew. His location will be monitored by the GPS ankle bracelet and, when not in the presence of one of the sureties, he must confirm his attendance at his residence via landline telephone or video.
[41] Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant, upon entering into a recognizance in the amount of $5,000 without deposit, and with sureties Sheba Fox in the amount of $5,000 without deposit, Corinne Fox in the amount of $5,000 without deposit and Michael Fox in the amount of $50,000 without deposit, be granted judicial interim release upon condition that he:
a) Reside with your surety, Sheba Fox, at 573 Montgomery Street (“your residence”), Thunder Bay.
b) Do not change your address without leave of the Court.
c) Remain in your residence at all times unless you are in the company of one or more of your sureties.
d) When outside your residence, carry a copy of your recognizance of bail with you at all times.
e) Follow the rules and discipline of your sureties.
f) Not have any visitors at 573 Montgomery Street without the consent, obtained in advance, of your surety, Ms. Sheba Fox.
g) When in your residence and not in the company of one of your sureties, you are to permit your sureties to monitor your remaining within your residence by presenting yourself, via landline telephone, videoconference, or via surveillance cameras, at least twice in any five hour period.
h) Keep a log recording the date and time of any telephone, videoconference, or surveillance camera checks engaged in by your sureties, and surrender a copy of this log upon request by the police, the prosecutor, or the Court.
i) You are to comply with a curfew and remain in your residence between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., regardless of whether you are in the company of one or more of your sureties.
j) Present yourself at the doorway of your residence when requested by police to ensure your compliance with these conditions.
k) Report to the Thunder Bay Police Service via telephone on Monday of every week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
l) Remain within fifty kilometers of the City of Thunder Bay.
m) Surrender all passports and like travel documents, and do not apply for or seek passports or like travel documents.
n) Be subject, at your own expense, to GPS monitoring by Recovery Science Corporation (“RSC”), which shall include:
i) Entering into RSC’s Participant Agreement and complying with its terms;
ii) Wearing a GPS ankle bracelet at all times;
iii) Permitting RSC to install supplementary equipment and to inspect, replace and maintain equipment as it deems necessary; Complying with RSC’s leave notification and battery charging requirements;
iv) Cooperating fully with RSC staff;
v) Submitting to the installation of a GPS monitoring device provided by Recovery Science prior to your release from custody, and provide an attestation as to the installation of the device to the facility at which you are held prior to your release; and
vi) Continuing to abide by the terms of your monitoring herein until such time that RSC confirms that it has received notice of the termination or variation of these conditions directly from the Court, the Thunder Bay Police Service, or the Thunder Bay Crown Attorney’s Office.
o) With respect to the monitoring provided by Recovery Science Corporation, the device shall
i) Monitor your remaining within a circular radius of 20 meters of 573 Montgomery Street, Thunder Bay, unless you are in the company of one or more of your sureties;
ii) Monitor your remaining within a circular radius of 20 meters of 573 Montgomery Street, Thunder Bay, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. without exception;
iii) Monitor your remaining within 50 kilometers of the City of Thunder Bay;
iv) Report any violations of the terms of your electronic monitoring to the Thunder Bay Police Service forthwith; and
v) Report forthwith to the Thunder Bay Police Service any losses of monitoring connectivity which are of 30 minutes’ duration or greater, such losses having their origin in GPS outages, cellular network outages, outages in RSC’s monitoring infrastructure, or of any other source whatsoever.
p) Do not possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code, including a firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, ammunition, explosive substance, or any object used, designed to be used, or intended for use to threaten or intimidate any person.
q) Do not possess or consume any substances as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, except in accordance with a valid medical prescription in your name.
r) Abstain from the purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol, cannabis, or other intoxicating substances, except in accordance with a valid medical prescription in your name.
s) Do not communicate directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with the following individuals:
i. David Hui;
ii. Musab Saboon;
iii. Joyce Ruggles;
iv. Jaime Ruggles;
v. Megan Shperuk;
vi. Crystal Leduc;
vii. Amy Powell;
viii. Tom Gollat;
ix. Amanda Leach;
x. Julian Nabigon;
xi. Stephanie Kamanewetamin;
xii. Chris Osmulski;
xiii. Nick Burchat;
xiv. Chris Rodney;
xv. Melissa Hay;
xvi. Alberto Dias-Sousa;
xvii. Jamie MacDonald;
xviii. Patricia Siipola;
xix. Christo Parkinson;
xx. Steve Bailot;
xxi. Clint Ibey;
xxii. Linda MacCallum;
xxiii. Tabitha Papassay;
xxiv. Ashley Kejick-Mckay;
xxv. Justin Legallis; and
xxvi. Daisy Darrach.
t) Do not attend at the commercial premises known as Mario’s Bowl, 710 Memorial Avenue, Thunder Bay.
“Original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: December 20, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-0171-00BR
DATE: 2019-12-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty the Queen
Crown (Respondent)
- and -
Marshall Hardy-Fox
Accused (Applicant)
REASONS ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL
WARNING
A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING
UNDER S. 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Newton J.
Released: December 20, 2019