Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-19-10000268-00BR Date: 2020-01-10 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty The Queen – and – Sarai Lopez Iglesias

Counsel: Karen Simone and Rebecca Law, for the Crown Nathan Gorham and Breana Vandebeek, for Ms. Lopez Iglesias

Heard: December 20, 2019

Subject to any further Order by a Court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons given shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as (a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the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 pursuant to Section s.517(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Reasons for Judgment on Bail Hearing

BACKGROUND

[1] On May 23, 2018 at about 4:20 pm Sarai Lopez Iglesias and David Obregon Castro went to an apartment building at 70 Spadina Avenue. Abbegail Eliott lived there. Mr. Obregon Castro had a key to Ms. Eliott’s apartment. He also had a gun.

[2] Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro unlocked the door and burst into the apartment. Present in the apartment were Ms. Eliott, Noble Selby, and Michael Grant. Mr. Obregon Castro fired at least two shots. While Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Castro were in the apartment one of them stabbed Ms. Eliott. She bled to death.

[3] The police charged Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro with first degree murder. The police also charged Mr. Obregon Castro with various firearms offences. They were ordered to stand trial by Justice Botham on October 30, 2019. They will go to trial in November 2020.

[4] There is no doubt that either Mr. Obregon Castro or Ms. Lopez Iglesias caused Ms. Eliottt’s death unlawfully. The key questions will be which of them stabbed Ms. Elliott; and whether the other is guilty as a party to the killing.

[5] Ms. Lopez Iglesias now applies for bail. Her counsel argues that she has a strong defence. They argue that Mr. Obregon Castro killed Ms. Eliott. Ms. Lopez Iglesias had no idea that he was going to kill her. She only intended to rob Ms. Eliott. Further, after the preliminary inquiry the Crown’s case is not as solid as it initially appeared. Ms. Lopez Iglesias has no criminal record. She has a very good plan for bail. The plan involves house arrest in her parent’s home, electronic monitoring, and a substantial amount pledged.

[6] The Crown’s position is that Ms. Lopez Iglesias stabbed Ms. Eliott with the intention of killing her. The killing was planned and deliberate. Mr. Obregon Castro is a party to the murder. The Crown’s position is further that the case is strong, indeed, overwhelming against Ms. Lopez Iglesias. The sureties, while well-meaning, are not sufficient for Ms. Lopez Iglesias to overcome her onus. The case is very serious – a murder, the most serious crime known to our law. Ms. Iglesias should stay where she is.

[7] The bail hearing was conducted on Friday December 21, 2019. I gave my judgment on Monday December 23, 2019. I indicated that my reasons would follow because I was unable to complete them over the weekend.

[8] This case was an extremely close call, but after careful consideration, I agreed with the defence. The following are my reasons for granting bail.

THE MURDER

[9] Bad blood existed between Ms. Eliott and Ms. Lopez Iglesias. Ms. Lopez Iglesias was romantically involved with Mr. Obregon Castro. Apparently, Ms. Lopez Iglesias went on holiday in the spring of 2018. While she was away, Mr. Obregon Castro and Ms. Eliott had a sexual relationship. Ms. Lopez Iglesias apparently found the relationship between Mr. Obregon Castro and Ms. Eliott very upsetting.

[10] On May 21 Ms. Eliott and Ms. Lopez Iglesias had a fight in the parking lot of Ms. Eliottt’s building. Ms. Eliott’s boyfriend, Noble Selby, intervened. He struck Ms. Lopez Iglesias in the face with a pipe. Ms. Eliott was also injured. Ms. Lopez Iglesias allegedly bloodied her nose and face. Shortly after the fight, Ms. Eliott and Mr. Selby stood on Ms. Eliott’s balcony. Mr. Obregon Castro arrived. He fired gun shots at them. Nobody was injured.

[11] After the May 21 fight, but prior to the murder, Ms. Lopez Eglesias spoke with Hailey Staffa. Ms. Staffa also knew Ms. Eliott. Ms. Lopez Iglesias told Ms. Staffa that her boyfriend had a key to Ms. Eliottt’s apartment. She also said that she and her boys would take revenge by breaking into Ms. Eliott’s apartment. She told Ms. Staff that she was going to “fuck her up one last time”.

[12] Also after the May 21 fight, Ms. Eliott apparently sent a photograph of Mr. Obregon’s genitals to Ms. Lopez Iglesias. She then forwarded the photograph to her friend Wolfgang Genereux. She texted: “that’s what I got from Abbey”. She then texted: “I’m gunna kill her”.

[13] On May 23, 2018 Mr. Obregon Castro and Ms. Lopez Iglesias broke into Ms. Eliott’s apartment. Mr. Obregon Castro used a key that he had obtained from Ms. Eliott. They were wearing sunglasses. They were dressed in black. They had partially covered their faces. Ms. Eliottt, Mr. Selby, and another man named Michael Grant were in the apartment. Mr. Obregon Castro fired shots at Ms. Eliottt and Mr. Selby. Mr. Grant was on a bed. Mr. Obregon Castro told him to stay there. He did. Ms. Eliottt was stabbed on the balcony.

[14] At the preliminary inquiry Mr. Selby and Mr. Grant testified. Justice Botham described Mr. Selby as a “challenging” witness. The accounts of the two men were difficult to piece together, but they both appear to have identified Ms. Lopez Iglesias as the person who stabbed Ms. Eliottt. Two independent witnesses, however, saw the altercation on the balcony from a distance. Both described a man fighting with a woman on the balcony. The inference that counsel for Ms. Lopez Iglesias suggests is that it was Mr. Obregon Castro who inflicted the fatal wound – or that there is at least a reasonable doubt about who did it.

[15] After the murder Sonia Baldi assisted Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro. She has since been charged with being an accessory after the fact. After the murder she and Ms. Lopez Iglesias exchanged text messages. Ms. Lopez Iglesias referred to them as “cellies4lyfr”. Ms. Baldi testified at the preliminary inquiry that Mr. Obregon Castro told Ms. Lopez Iglesias to get rid of her shoes.

[16] Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro were arrested in a vehicle. The police seized Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s shoes. The shoes had Ms. Eliottt’s blood on them.

[17] After she was arrested, Ms. Lopez Iglesias told the police that she did not know that Mr. Obregon Castro had a gun or a knife. She did not know that Ms. Eliottt had been stabbed. She said that she did not go out onto the balcony.

[18] When Ms. Lopez Iglesias was arrested, she was placed in a cell with two undercover police officers. She told the officers that she did not kill Ms. Eliottt. She said that her boyfriend was the reason she was arrested. She said that she had gone to the apartment to retrieve a necklace.

MS. LOPEZ IGLESIAS’S BACKGROUND

[19] Ms. Lopez Iglesias is 27 years old. She came to Canada from Ecuador at age 9. She is a Canadian citizen. She has a 6 year old daughter. Her mother, Alexandra Iglesias, has custody of the child.

[20] Ms. Lopez Iglesias was removed from her home by the Children’s Aid Society when she was 15. She ran away from several foster homes. Alexandra Iglesias testified that in 2005-2006 she and her daughter had a fight. Alexandra Iglesias testified that in her home country, Ecuador, it was common to physically discipline children. It appears that the school authorities reported physical abuse to the Children’s Aid Society. The Children’s Aid Society apprehended Ms. Lopez Iglesias. They did not apprehend Alexandra Iglesias’s other children. Alexandra Iglesias’s daughter works for Air Canada. Her son works as a renovator.

[21] It is not entirely clear how Ms. Lopez Iglesias has managed to support herself over the last fifteen years. In 2017 she graduated from Humber College with a certificate as a child and youth worker. She appears to have worked at a group home in Oshawa at some point. It is not clear how long she worked there.

[22] It is also not clear where Ms. Lopez Iglesias has been living. There is some evidence that she lived with her mother from time to time, and also with the father of her child (who lives in Oshawa). At the time of the murder, she was moving from one AirBNB to another that Ms. Baldi had rented.

[23] Ms. Lopez Iglesias has also worked in the sex trade. As the Agreed Statement of Facts put it, she has “engaged in a drug lifestyle with Ms. Baldi and Mr. Obregon Castro.” There are some text messages from Ms. Lopez Iglesias advising her brother on how to “run” girls in the sex trade. Her brother has been charged by the police on more than one occasion, although he has no criminal record.

THE PLAN

[24] The current plan put forward by the defence is that Ms. Lopez Iglesias will live in the family home with her mother and step-father. Her mother works as a visual arts teacher at Harbourfront Centre. She will take a leave from her job to be home with Ms. Lopez Iglesias until the trial is complete.

[25] The other surety will be Rodman Mena, Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s step-father. He works as a waiter at the King Edward Hotel and the Royal York Hotel. He makes around $115,000 per year. He will continue working in order to pay the bills.

[26] Alexandra Iglesias and Mr. Mena own their own home. They estimate the value at around $1.2 million, with about $850,000 in equity. They are prepared to put up the entire amount.

[27] The plan also calls for an ankle monitor supplied by Recovery Science. The cost is about $600/month. The family will pay that amount.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:

[28] Ms. Lopez Iglesias bears the onus to show cause that she should be released: Criminal Code, s. 522(2).

[29] Ms. Lopez Iglesias has no criminal record. She is not on any releases. She is a Canadian citizen. I will briefly assess whether there are real concerns on the primary and secondary grounds. The real issue is the tertiary ground. In balancing whether detention is required to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, the key factors are the strength of the Crown’s case (and the corresponding strength of the defence); and whether the plan of release is adequate for Ms. Lopez Iglesias to meet the onus.

[30] These are the issues to be decided:

• Are there concerns on the primary and secondary grounds?
• What is the strength of the Crown’s case?
• How strong is the likely defence?
• Is the plan adequate?
• Has Ms. Lopez Iglesias met her onus?

(a) Are there concerns on the primary and secondary grounds?

[31] Crown counsel, Ms. Simone, argues that there are real concerns on the primary and secondary grounds. On the primary ground, Ms. Lopez Iglesias had a history of running away from foster homes when she was in care. For the past 11 years she has not had a stable, fixed residence. She has lived from time to time with her mother and step-father, but also with the father of her child. At the time of her arrest she was moving from one AirBNB to another. Moreover, she had a “go-bag” that included her passport and it seems as if she may have been prepared to go on the run. On the secondary ground, Ms. Lopez Iglesias appears to have been involved in “running” young women for sex work, and even advising her brother as to how to get involved with this kind of criminal exploitation.

[32] I agree with Ms. Simone that there are troubling aspects to Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s behaviour. These troubling aspects raise concerns on the primary and secondary grounds. I find, however, that the concerns are not so significant that they cannot be met with an adequate plan.

[33] I do not see the link between running away from a foster home as a teenager and failing to show up for court as a 29 year old. Few adults would wish to be judged on their teenaged behaviour. No doubt foster care can be difficult for a troubled youth and running away is not uncommon. It does not always correlate to criminal activity. I think it is more important that Ms. Lopez Iglesias has never been convicted of an offence involving failure to appear in court or failure to comply with a bail order. Indeed, Ms. Lopez Iglesias has no criminal record.

[34] I do agree that the “go-bag” and passport are problematic. I am satisfied, however, that with an appropriate plan – including the surrender of any passports or travel documents, and the use of the ankle bracelet – that the primary ground concern arising from this evidence can be met.

[35] I also agree that the presence of Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s brother, and his expressed interest in Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s line of work are also problematic. It must be remembered that neither of them have a criminal record and neither of them face outstanding charges of any kind. In my respectful view, the concerns raised can be dealt with by way of conditions – conditions that Ms. Lopez Iglesias not have a cell phone, and that she not have unsupervised access to the internet.

[36] Ultimately, the real issues here are not the primary and secondary grounds. The real issues are those associated with the tertiary ground. I turn to those issues next.

(b) What is the strength of the Crown’s case?

[37] Ms. Vanderbeek, for Ms. Lopez Iglesias, argues that the Crown’s case is not as strong as it might seem. She points out that two independent witnesses both identified a man as the person struggling with Ms. Eliottt on the balcony. She argues that Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s exculpatory statements to the undercover officers after her arrest are spontaneous utterances and potentially admissible: R. v. Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 at para. 72.

[38] Respectfully, I cannot agree with this assessment of the strength of the Crown’s case. The Crown’s case, at least based on the evidence I have seen, is very strong. Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro clearly entered the apartment with a plan. They were partially disguised. Mr. Obregon Castro had a gun. A jury could certainly infer that Ms. Lopez Iglesias had a knife. It seems clear that Mr. Grant and Mr. Selby were, to put it mildly, poor witnesses, but both identified Ms. Lopez Iglesias as the stabber. Logically, as Crown counsel pointed out, the plan seemed to be that Mr. Obregon Castro would keep Mr. Selby at bay with his gun while Ms. Lopez Iglesias attacked Ms. Eliott. Certainly it would make sense that they divide the weapons. It is hard to see Mr. Obregon Castro playing his part with the gun in one hand while also killing Ms. Eliott with the knife in the other, Hollywood-style.

[39] Even if a jury did accept that Mr. Obregon Castro was the stabber it would be open to them to find Ms. Lopez Iglesias guilty of first degree murder as a party – or as an aider or abettor. The text messages where Ms. Lopez Iglesias indicates she is going to kill Ms. Eliottt could be seen as mere puffery after the fight – except for the fact that Ms. Eliottt was killed, and Ms. Lopez Iglesias was there when it happened. Ms. Lopez Iglesias would have been well aware that Mr. Obregon Castro had a gun – after all, he had used it during the fight on May 21.

[40] I do agree with Ms. Vanderbeek that I must also consider the potential defence evidence. I turn to that area next.

(c) How strong is the likely defence?

[41] Ms. Vanderbeek further argues that R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, should provide some guidance at a bail hearing. In Oland, the Supreme Court considered bail pending appeal for a person convicted of second degree murder. Appellate judges considering bail pending appeal are required to consider (among other things) whether detention is necessary in the public interest: Criminal Code, s. 679(3)(c). Moldaver J., for the Court, noted that Parliament provided guidance for maintaining confidence in the administration of justice at a pre-trial bail hearing but not for bail pending appeal. He indicated that the same factors should be used, with modification, by appellate judges: Oland at paras. 32-33.

[42] In particular, Moldaver J. noted that the strength of the Crown’s case in s. 515(10)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code is translates into the “not frivolous” criteria in s. 679(3)(a).

[43] Accordingly, Ms. Vanderbeek argues, when assessing the strength of the Crown’s case and a corollary defence, a judge on a bail hearing ought to consider whether any possible defence is more than merely frivolous: Oland, para. 51.

[44] The defence position is well articulated in the factum at para. 55:

If the clearly not frivolous standard pushes the public confidence toward release, in the context of bail pending appeal, then the same standard or something less onerous regarding the quality of the defence evidence ought to move the balance toward release in the context of pre-trial bail. In other words, where the applicant has a defence that is clearly not frivolous and the flight and safety concerns are negligible, public confidence may weigh in favour of release, even in cases involving murder charges.

[45] I agree with this interpretation of Oland. I think it is consistent with St. Cloud at para. 59; see also R. v. Dang, 2015 ONSC 4254 per Trotter J. (as he then was) at para. 53. Everyone with experience in the criminal justice system is aware that the Crown’s case at the bail stage sometimes looks stronger than it actually turns out to be at trial. That said, the defence evidence is simply one factor for a judge or justice to consider. It is important to remember, however, that at the pre-trial stage the defence case may suffer from the same frailties as the Crown’s case. It has not been tested, and may, in the end, depend solely on the credibility of the accused.

[46] In this case, while I agree with the interpretation of the law put forward by the defence, I have my doubts that the defence is strong. There is no doubt that either Mr. Obregon Castro or Ms. Lopez Iglesias stabbed Ms. Eliott. There is also no doubt that the Crown has a very strong argument that if one was a principal, the other was a party. As I have already pointed out, there was evidence to suggest a plan and that both persons were armed – Mr. Obregon Castro with a gun, and likely Ms. Lopez Iglesias with a knife. The assertion that the killing was a robbery gone wrong seems at odds with Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s text messages. If Ms. Lopez Iglesias testifies, those text messages will be used to undermine her credibility. Even if the jury accepts that the crime was a robbery gone wrong, Ms. Lopez Iglesias may well be found guilty of manslaughter either as a principal or as a party.

[47] Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s best evidence, it seems to me, is the identification by independent witnesses that it appeared to be a man who was fighting with Ms. Eliott on the balcony. Those witnesses, however, were far away and the action was quick. It is difficult to say whether a jury will accept that evidence, but it is evidence that is favourable to the defence.

[48] I am unable to say that the defence evidence is frivolous, but it certainly seems weak. Overall, I conclude that the Crown has a strong case.

(d) Is the plan adequate?

[49] Ms. Simone, for the Crown, argues that the plan is not appropriate. It fails to meet the concerns on the tertiary ground. The proposed sureties are well-intentioned, but they simply do not know Ms. Lopez Iglesias well enough anymore. They did not have enough information about where she has been living and what she has been doing over the last few years. They were unaware that Ms. Lopez Iglesias had been working in the sex trade – although Crown counsel does not fault them for that, and neither do I. They were not aware of her drug use. They were not fully aware of Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s friends or romantic partners. In short, the Crown argues, Alexandra Iglesias and Mr. Mena are simply not in a position to know enough about Ms. Lopez Iglesias to properly supervise her.

[50] Ms. Simone has a point. Alexandra Iglesias and Mr. Mena seem to have been out of the loop regarding Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s activities in the last few years. They certainly do not seem to have an understanding of what their daughter has really been up to. With respect, however, I do not think that disqualifies them as sureties. I am satisfied that they are appropriate sureties and that the plan is a reasonable one. It is true that Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s lifestyle over the past number of years does not generate confidence that she will obey the rules of the household. I am aware, however, that she has not accumulated any convictions. As well, her sureties will have the ultimate hammer: they can send her back to jail at any time.

[51] It is hard to know how a parent and step-parent could be more appropriate sureties. I find that Alexandra Iglesias is an adequate surety. Being a parent is not a science. All parents make errors in raising their children. There is no requirement that a parent have the patience and wisdom of Atticus Finch. There is only a requirement that a surety be able to meet the requirements of being a surety. I find that Alexandra Iglesias’s willingness to take a leave from her job to be her daughter’s full-time surety is impressive. After carefully considering her testimony, I found her to be honest and willing to take the necessary steps to keep her daughter in conformity with a bail order. I am also impressed that she is willing to sign for all the equity in the house. I am similarly impressed with Mr. Mena’s willingness to perform the role of a surety.

[52] I do have some areas of concern. Ms. Lopez Iglesias’s brother continues to reside with the family. He has been charged (although not convicted) by the police on several occasions. I am not sure what he has been charged with. Of more concern is the fact that Ms. Lopez Iglesias appears to have given him some advice about how to get involved in the sex trade by “running” girls.

[53] I am also concerned that Ms. Lopez Iglesias may communicate with Sonia Baldi and Devonte Allen. These two individuals both have criminal records and both allegedly assisted Ms. Lopez Iglesias and Mr. Obregon Castro after the murder. Ms. Baldi is charged with accessory after the fact. She is out of custody.

[54] While these issues do cause me some concern, I think that there are ways to deal with it. Ms. Lopez Iglesias will not be permitted to have a cell phone. She will not be permitted to access the internet unsupervised.

[55] In my view, the presence of the ankle monitor is not decisive. There is a debate in the courts about whether ankle monitoring assists on the tertiary ground. My own view is that it does little on a house arrest bail: R. v. Palijan, [2012] O.J. No. 6549. According to the material provided by Recovery Science:

In our view, monitoring ought not to be relied upon if the required standard is to prefent violations or to ensure an immediate police response – it cannot prevent an accused from fleeing, violating terms, or committing offences, nor can it guarantee police intervention in a breach or offence in progress. Rather, monitoring is best thought of as a risk management tool deriving its potential to mitigate risk from:

a. the deterrence effect resulting from the accused knowing that he or she is being monitored and that breaches of monitored consitions will be detected and reported; and,

b. he fact that, if the deterrence effect doesn’t work on a particular accused, non-compliant behaviour will be detected, reported and consequence much earlier than would be the case with an accused who is not monitored.

[56] The presence of ankle monitoring is not decisive in a case like this. It can do nothing to prevent a violation or have the police respond. Realistically, I find that the only thing ankle monitoring can really do in this situation is give the court some extra confidence regarding the sureties. Data can be gathered if Ms. Lopez Iglesias is away from the base station. That would assist in proving a violation. Alexandra Iglesias and Mr. Mena should also be aware that the data would be available for a future estreat hearing, if it should come to that.

[57] Rather, I prefer the fact that Alexandra Iglesias will be available to monitor her daughter on a constant basis and will herself be on the hook if she fails to do so adequately. Accordingly, I find that the plan is a reasonable one. Does it go far enough to meet the onus? That is the next question.

(e) Has Ms. Lopez Iglesias met her onus?

[58] Subsection 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code states:

(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:

(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.

[59] Bail is available in every type of offence, including murder: R. v. St. Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 at para. 54.

[60] When I consider the application of the factors under s. 515(10)(c) I am required to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused and the need to maintain justice in the community. Whether to detain or not is not limited to exceptional circumstances. Rather the focus is on whether detention is required to maintain confidence in the administration of justice: St. Cloud at paras. 4, 54.

[61] A cursory review of the factors does not favour release: the Crown’s case is strong; the offence is the gravest possible; the circumstances are egregious; a firearm was used (although not by Ms. Lopez Iglesias); and Ms. Lopez Iglesias is liable for a life sentence.

[62] Several cases in this court have considered release where the accused is charged with murder. The tertiary ground is almost always in play where there is a charge of murder; and murder is a reverse onus offence. Nonetheless, where judges have been persuaded that the plan is sufficiently robust, they have ordered release.

[63] Trotter J. noted in R. v. Dang at para. 58 that release is not a choice between freedom and jail. It is a choice between release on conditions and detention. Hambly J. of this Court applied that logic in R. v. Ball, 2015 ONSC 7646. Ball was charged with first degree murder. He was a drug dealer. He allegedly killed one of his customers, a waitress who was addicted to cocaine. He allegedly covered up the murder by dumping her body in the Grand River. Justice Hambly released Ball on a substantial surety bail. He accepted that there was a defence, but more importantly he was impressed by the strength of the plan. It involved Ball residing in the family home with his mother as surety. Additionally, he was required to wear an ankle monitor.

[64] In R. v. Bassi, 2018 ONSC 4190, the accused had no criminal record and was not on any releases. The Crown’s case was strong. The plan contemplated that he live with his parents. That case has some important similarities to this one. Woolcombe J. was satisfied that notwithstanding the extremely serious charge, concerns on the tertiary ground could be met through a residential surety bail with his parents constantly monitoring him.

[65] In R. v. Khattra, 2018 ONSC 3006 the accused also had no criminal record. He also was not on any releases. He was alleged to have been part of a group that “boxed in” the victim in his car, cornered him when he ran away, and then beat him to death. The plan of supervision involved a house arrest provision (with his family). Andre J. found, like Woolcombe J., that public confidence in the administration of justice would not be undermined even where the charge is first degree murder and the Crown’s case is relatively strong.

[66] Notwithstanding the strength of the Crown’s case, I am ultimately persuaded that Ms. Lopez Iglesias can be released. I find that the plan of release is a strong one. Alexandra Iglesias has agreed to leave her job to supervise her daughter. That is very unusual. In my view, the public can have confidence that Alexandra Iglesias will take her duties very seriously and will act as a virtual jailer.

[67] I also find that this is very likely to be the last time Ms. Lopez Iglesias can spend real time out of custody with her daughter for many years. In my respectful view, public confidence in the administration of justice does not require that Ms. Lopez Iglesias be deprived of that opportunity. There is room for compassion.

DISPOSITION

[68] Accordingly, Ms. Lopez Iglesias is released on a surety bail of $800,000.00 with Alexandra Iglesias and Rodman Mena as named sureties.

• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will abide by the following conditions:
• Reside at 112 Ennedale Road, Toronto, and not take up residence anywhere else;
• Be fitted for and wear an ankle monitor issued by Recovery Sciences Corporation, and all costs will be borne by the sureties;
• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will be under real house arrest: she may only leave the house for only one of three reasons: the purposes of going to court, visiting her counsel, or for a personal medical emergency.
• Be in the company of one of her sureties at all times when out of the house for one of the three purposes, carry a recognizance each and every time she leaves the residence, and present them to a police officer upon demand;
• Appear at the front door of 112 Ennedale within five minutes of a demand by any police officer and present a copy of the recognizance;
• Surrender all travel documents not already in the custody of the police, and will not apply for another travel document;
• Not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code;
• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will not be permitted to own a cell phone. She is not to use a cell phone, except for the purposes of a medical emergency;
• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will not be permitted to access the internet unless she is directly supervised by one of her sureties and she is not to post anything on social media;
• All computers in the house will be locked with a password, and Ms. Lopez Iglesias is not to be provided with any password;
• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will not counsel anyone in the commission of an offence;
• Ms. Lopez Iglesias will have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the following people:
  • Davonte Allen;
  • David Obregon Castro;
  • Sonia Baldy;
  • Michael Grant;
  • Noble Selby.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: January 10, 2020