Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-20-00000122-00BR Date: 2020-05-06 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent – and – Andrae Douse, Applicant

Counsel: Paul Zambonini and Michael Townsend, for the Crown Respondent Ryan Handlarski, for the Applicant

Heard: April 24, 2020

Before: Justice Peter Bawden

Restriction on Publication

Pursuant to sections 522(5) and 517(1) of the Criminal Code, an order issued prohibiting the publication in any document or broadcast or transmission in any way of the evidence taken, the information given, or the representations made, and the reasons issued, on this application. This prohibition applies until either the accused is discharged at a preliminary inquiry or his trial ends. This prohibition is subject to an exception that permits a lawyer to circulate these reasons to another lawyer or to rely on them before any court.

[1] The Crown alleges that Andrae Douse (the “Applicant”) was a party to a planned and deliberate murder. The Applicant has brought an application to be released on bail.

[2] The Applicant is 22 years old and has no criminal record. He does have one other matter before the courts, a charge of possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking. That offence is alleged to have taken place during the time that the Applicant has been in custody.

[3] It is proposed that the Applicant be released on a house arrest bail which would be enforced with electronic monitoring. His father, Garth Douse (“Mr. Douse”), is willing to act as his surety. Mr. Douse has previously acted as a surety for his son and that bail was observed without incident.

[4] Having considered the strength of the Crown's case and various deficiencies in the release plan, I have reluctantly concluded that the Applicant has not satisfied his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds. The Applicant will be detained pending his trial.

The Allegations

[5] This application was heard during the suspension of in-person sittings of the court caused by the COVID-19 public health crisis. The hearing was conducted by teleconference with the consent of all parties. The evidence was primarily presented through documents, although the court also heard viva voce testimony from the Applicant, his father and a detective who was involved in the investigation.

[6] The Applicant is one of four suspects believed to have been involved in the murder. Only one other suspect, Michael Smith, has been arrested. Mr. Smith had his bail hearing before Cavanaugh J. on April 17, 2020 and was detained on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

[7] The third suspect, Dayne Sitladeen, has not yet been arrested and is believed to be in the United States. The fourth suspect has not been identified.

[8] The facts of the case are set out comprehensively in Cavanaugh J.’s ruling in Mr. Smith’s bail application: See R. v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 1889. The facts which pertain to the Applicant can be stated briefly.

[9] At 12:59 pm on May 1, 2019, a black Honda Accord entered the parking lot of a plaza located at John Garland Boulevard and Martin Grove Avenue. The Applicant got out of the vehicle and went into The Dollar King variety store. These events were recorded by a video surveillance camera.

[10] The Applicant approached the storekeeper and asked if he sold ski masks. The storekeeper told him that they did not for fear that they would be used against people in the neighbourhood. The Applicant returned to the Accord and got inside. After a short time in the car, he returned to the store and purchased two neck warmers and two pairs of gloves. These were the last two pairs of gloves available in the store.

[11] A video camera positioned behind the front counter of the store captured most of the Applicant’s movements. The Crown introduced the video from his second attendance in the store on this application. That video shows the Applicant standing at the front counter of the store for over a minute with his face clearly visible.

[12] The Applicant left the store with the gloves and neck warmers and returned to the Honda Accord. The car drove out of the Dollar King parking lot, went north on Martin Grove Avenue and turned into the John Garland housing complex. This was a trip of approximately 400 metres.

[13] The car parked and three men got out and walked towards the home of the victim. All three men had their faces covered by neck warmers. One of the men was wearing two gloves; each of the other two were wearing only one glove. The Applicant remained in the car.

[14] The three men walked directly to the home of the victim. Events at the door were not captured on video but the Crown alleges that the victim opened the door and was immediately shot in the chest. The perpetrators ran back to the Accord and the car left the scene.

[15] There is no evidence that the perpetrators were attempting to rob the victim. There was a roll of over $1,000 in cash on a bed located just inside the residence which was not taken by the assailants.

[16] The timeline of the murder was very short. No more than five minutes passed from the time that the Applicant left the Dollar King with the neck warmers and gloves until the shooting occurred. The events were continuous without any consequential breaks.

[17] The Crown alleges that the suspects were all members of the Jamestown Crips and that the murder was a territorial hit. Dayne Sitladeen posted a rap video on the day of the murder in which he boasted about going into a rival neighbourhood and shooting someone. That video was deleted on the same day that it was posted.

[18] The evidence of gang affiliation is scant. The Crown alleges that Dayne Sitladeen had posted rap videos prior to the murder in which he flashed signs which are associated with the Jamestown Crips. There is no evidence that either Michael Smith or the Applicant are members of that gang, apart from their association with Mr. Sitladeen.

[19] The evidence of association between the Applicant and the other suspects is also quite limited. One week prior to the homicide, the Applicant and Mr. Smith drove Mr. Sitladeen in the same Honda Accord to a court appearance in Toronto. All three men appear in an undated photo on Mr. Sitladeen’s Instagram account.

[20] Counsel for the Applicant argues that the evidence, taken at its highest, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Applicant shared the intent of the three perpetrators to commit murder. Mr. Handlarski submits that the evidence permits a reasonable inference that the Applicant was duped into buying the items which were used in committing the murder and, on that basis, the jury might reasonably conclude that the Applicant was unaware that the other occupants of the car intended to commit an offence using the neck warmers and gloves. On this scenario, the Applicant would be acquitted of all charges. In the alternative, Mr. Handlarski submits that even if the jury concludes that the Applicant was aware that the other parties intended to commit some criminal offense and that he purchased the items to assist them in that endeavour, the evidence does not prove that he was aware that the intended offence was murder. In that scenario, he would be guilty only of manslaughter.

[21] The Crown’s position is that the evidence leads to the irresistible inference that the Applicant was a party to the joint plan to kill the deceased. The Applicant was a known associate of Smith and Sitladeen; their association was too close for the Applicant to have been utterly duped by his friends. The continuous sequence of the events bespeaks a common plan to commit murder and nothing else. At the very least, it is a case that demands some explanation by the Applicant.

[22] In my view, the Crown certainly has a prima facie case that the Applicant was party to a first-degree murder. It is difficult to describe the strength of that case in qualitative terms. There may well be scope for the defence to argue that if the Applicant knew that he was buying items which would be used to commit a murder, he would have made more of an effort to disguise himself. In my view, however, the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that he knew that the items were to be employed in the commission of some criminal offence and he still did not hide his face. The Crown case for manslaughter, at least, is overwhelming.

Evidence Regarding the Applicant

[23] The Applicant is 22 years old. He is a Canadian citizen and lived with his parents in their home in Mississauga prior to his arrest. That is the only information disclosed on this application concerning his antecedents. The record is completely silent with respect to his education, employment training or work history.

[24] The defence presented evidence that the Applicant had been arrested on charges of attempted murder and kidnapping on August 15, 2017. He was released for six months on a house arrest bail which was completed without incident. The charges were ultimately withdrawn on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction. Defence counsel led evidence of the prior withdrawn charges for the sole purpose of demonstrating the viability of the release plan proposed in this case.

[25] The Applicant surrendered himself to police on the murder charge on May 15, 2019. In December 2019, while in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre, he was found in possession of six tablets of oxycodone which led to the additional charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking in a schedule I substance.

The Release Plan

[26] The Applicant’s father, Mr. Douse, is proposed to be the principal surety. He is offering $350,000 in surety which represents his half of the equity in the family home. If released, the Applicant would live with his father and be subject to a house arrest. The Applicant’s godfather, Donald Clacken, would provide a nominal surety and be available to escort the Applicant outside the home during the time that Mr. Douse is at work. Mr. Douse and Donald Clacken were also the sureties on the Applicant’s prior successful bail.

[27] Mr. Douse’s home is equipped with an electronic security system which sends a picture to his cell phone every time that someone enters or exits the front door of the home. Mr. Douse is also willing to engage the services of Recovery Science Corporation (hereinafter “RSC”) to provide GPS monitoring of the Applicant through an ankle bracelet. RSC is a well-reputed company which has provided electronic monitoring services since 2010.

[28] Mr. Douse is 59 years old. He and his wife purchased their home 18 years ago, and now have roughly $700,000 in equity in the home. The couple is, unfortunately, in the process of separating but Mrs. Douse still lives in the home, as does her 23-year-old daughter, Alexa. Neither Mrs. Douse nor her daughter have offered to act as sureties.

[29] Mr. Douse works full time as a truck driver for UPS. He leaves his home at 5 a.m. and does not return until 7 p.m. Mr. Douse works in the GTA and he is never required to spend a night away from his home.

[30] The Crown challenges Mr. Douse’s suitability as a surety despite his steady employment and previous success in supervising his son. The basis for the challenge began during the investigation of the homicide and was exacerbated by Mr. Douse’s testimony on this application.

[31] Police obtained the video from the Dollar King variety store shortly after the murder and identified Andrae Douse as a suspect. Detective Robin Jitta contacted Mr. Douse and asked him to attend 23 Division in the hope that he would identify his son in the video. Detective Jitta did not disclose the nature of the investigation to Mr. Douse.

[32] Mr. Douse did meet with Det. Jitta but declined to have their conversation recorded. Det. Jitta showed Mr. Douse five still images taken from the Dollar King video and the entire video of his second attendance in the store. Mr. Douse looked at the still images and said that they were too blurry for him to identify anyone. When he was shown the video, he told the officer that the male at the store counter looked like his son, but the Applicant’s hair was always braided and the male in the video had unbraided hair. He also said that he did not recognize the male’s clothing and that the male appeared to be too thin to be his son. He finally concluded that the male in the video was not his son.

[33] The Crown introduced the still images and video which were shown to Mr. Douse. The images are of very good quality and, although the Applicant was not before me to make a comparison, I would say that it would be a rare father who could not identify his own son in images of this quality.

[34] The Crown submits that Mr. Douse attempted to mislead the police in their investigation by refusing to identify his son and this compromises his reliability as a surety. I do not accept that submission. It is to Mr. Douse’s credit that he attended the station to voluntarily answer police questions. He had no reason to believe that his son was suspected of being involved in a murder and, when he was shown images of his son purchasing items at a variety store, he may well have thought that he was being investigated for a property offence. If he was less than forthcoming in those circumstances, that can be forgiven.

[35] But when he testified on this application, Mr. Douse was fully aware of the gravity of his son’s situation. When the Crown questioned him concerning his failure to identify his son, Mr. Douse adamantly denied that Detective Jitta had ever shown him the five images and video. He insisted instead that the officer had shown him only one image, a photo of a male wearing a grey sweatshirt with the hoodie up. Mr. Douse would not entertain any suggestion that his memory of the event was uncertain: he had only been shown one photo and the individual in that photo was not identifiable.

[36] Having heard that testimony, the Crown emailed Detective Jitta and, within a matter of minutes, the officer joined the teleconference and testified that he absolutely did show Mr. Douse all five images and the entire video. This evidence was obviously true and Mr. Handlarski, to his credit, acknowledged as much.

[37] I have no doubt that Mr. Douse is a hardworking and trustworthy gentleman in his day to day life. I must agree with the Crown, however, that he was untruthful in his evidence on this application, no doubt because of his desire to help his son. Unfortunately, his lack of candour as a witness does give rise to doubts about his reliability as a surety.

Evidence Concerning the Impact of COVID-19

[38] The defence relies on the affidavit of Dr. Aaron Orkin concerning the impact of COVID-19 on public health and the threat which it poses to the health of inmates held in custodial facilities. Dr. Orkin’s affidavit has been summarized in many recent decisions and requires no further explication here. I adopt the summary of Stribopoulos J., in R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 2237 at paragraphs 65-89.

[39] The Crown did not call any evidence to refute the assertions made in Dr. Orkin’s affidavit. Mr. Zambonini did provide the court with the most recent iteration of an Information Note provided by the Ministry of the Solicitor General concerning the state of custodial facilities in Ontario. In that note, which is dated April 21, 2020, the Institutional Services Division reports the following:

• As of April 21, there were 5707 inmates held in custody throughout the province;
• The inmate population has been reduced by 32% since March 16;
• As of April 20, five inmates and one guard at the TSDC have tested positive for the coronavirus;
• Less than 7% of the inmate population at TSDC have been tested for the virus;
• An outbreak of the virus has occurred at the Ontario Correctional Institute;
• 60 inmates from OCI who have tested positive for the virus were transferred to the TSDC where they are being held in medical isolation.

[40] The information note also outlines the ongoing efforts of correctional authorities to minimize the chances of infectious individuals entering custodial facilities. Their efforts include coordinating with the local Medical Officer of Health, maintaining sufficient medical care within the institutions, screening inmates and staff prior to entering the institution, distributing cleaning supplies to inmates, educating inmates with respect to proper hygienic practices and making all efforts to reduce the inmate population.

[41] In his affidavit which was sworn on April 7, Dr. Orkin expressed grave reservations about various similar assertions which were made in the March 30 version of the Ministry’s Information Note. The evidential value of that note has been questioned in several decisions including R. v. J.R., 2020 ONSC 1938 at paragraphs 32–43.

The Secondary Ground

[42] Section 510(10)(b) of the Criminal Code directs the court to consider if detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public having regard to all of the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice.

[43] The circumstances which I have considered (in descending order of importance) are as follows:

• The nature of the index offense
• The strength of the evidence implicating the Applicant
• Evidence concerning the Applicant’s background
• The reliability of the surety
• The strength of the release plan
• The possibility of interference with the administration of justice
• The impact of COVID-19

The Nature of the Index Offence

[44] The gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed play into the determination of the risk that the accused will present to the public if released. In this case, the Crown has a strong prima facie case that the accused was involved in a planned and deliberate murder which could be described as an execution. The victim was in his home at the time of the killing; he was utterly defenceless when he opened his door and was shot in the chest. Although the accused was not directly involved in the shooting, he was in the vicinity at the time of the murder and played a direct role in the commission of the offence.

The Strength of the Crown’s Case

[45] The gravity of the offence is of little consequence unless there is strong evidence that the accused was involved. In this case, there is irrefutable evidence linking the accused to an offence. Whether that offence is murder or manslaughter will ultimately depend upon the evidence heard by a jury but, based on what is presently available, I believe that the Applicant faces a significant risk of being convicted of first-degree murder.

Evidence Concerning the Applicant’s Background

[46] There is no evidence concerning the Applicant’s activities prior to his arrest on these charges and the absence of such evidence is troubling.

[47] The evidence does disclose that the Applicant was arrested on extremely serious charges in August 2017 and he remained on bail until March 2018 when the charges were withdrawn. The fact that he was charged has no relevance to this application apart from the expectation that the Applicant, having been arrested once on extremely serious charges, would have been at pains to avoid any further contact with the justice system. Despite that experience, the Applicant now finds himself before the court facing a charge of murder.

[48] As a young man detained on the charge of first-degree murder, one would again expect that the Applicant would show the utmost caution while in custody awaiting his trial. Instead, he was found hiding oxycodone tablets and has been charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

[49] Defense counsel argues that the PPT charge is not serious and might be resolved without incurring a criminal record. While this may be true, the conduct which underlies the charge gives rise to a greater concern.

[50] A jail is, to say the least, a rule bound environment. The rules are very clear, and anyone can follow them. If an inmate is incapable of following the rules even while being held in a secure facility, it does not bode well for his ability to observe rules in a far less restrictive environment such as his father's home.

The Reliability of the Surety

[51] Mr. Douse’s lack of candour when he testified on this application significantly diminishes his reliability as a surety.

[52] There is also cause to question how well Mr. Douse knows his son. Mr. Douse’s affidavit did not disclose any information regarding the Applicant’s history, and, under cross-examination, he acknowledged that he did not know what his son did when he left his home. Mr. Douse did not know his son’s cell phone number when he met with Det. Jitta on May 10th. He learned of the additional PPT charge for the first time when he testified on this application. Although he had visited the Applicant in jail many times prior to this bail hearing, his son had never told him that he had had been charged with an additional drug offence.

[53] Notwithstanding the success of the earlier bail, I have significant reservations about Mr. Douse familiarity with his son and his reliability as a surety.

The Strength of the Release Plan

[54] Mr. Douse leaves his home on weekdays at 5 a.m. and does not return until 7 p.m. Although the Applicant's mother and sister both live in the home, there is no evidence that they are willing to supervise the Applicant. According to Mr. Douse’s affidavit, his wife declined to act as a surety.

[55] The proposed release plan includes a provision for GPS monitoring through an ankle bracelet. Electronic monitoring can be a very effective means of ensuring compliance with a bail, but it depends upon the reliability of the accused and the vigilance of the surety. In this case, I have doubts about both.

The Possibility of Interference with the Administration of Justice

[56] The possibility that the accused might interfere with the administration of justice if released is generally not a concern when all of the suspects have been arrested and the significant witnesses have been interviewed. In this case, there are two alleged perpetrators who have not been arrested. One of the outstanding perpetrators is believed to be a youth.

[57] The proposed release plan is that the Applicant will remain in his father's home, unsupervised, while his father is away at work. While it may seem speculative to suggest that the Applicant would communicate with witnesses or suspected offenders if released, there is greater cause for concern in this case than most. A non-communication clause would be virtually unenforceable within the current release plan.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Secondary Grounds

[58] The Applicant has established that he suffers from a respiratory condition which occasionally causes shortness of breath and requires him to administer medication through an inhaler. There is no dispute that those who suffer from respiratory illnesses are at greater risk of suffering serious consequences if infected by the novel coronavirus. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he has a particular fear of contracting the virus and, for that reason, he would be strongly motivated to observe the conditions of his release rather than risk having to return to a custodial facility. This is an argument which arises strictly on the evidence and there is no dispute that it is a relevant consideration in assessing the secondary grounds.

[59] Defence counsel submitted that the COVID-19 health crisis should also factor into the court’s interpretation of the secondary grounds for detention. Mr. Handlarski points out that the 32% decline in the prison population of Ontario since March 16 reflects, at least in part, a re-evaluation of what constitutes a substantial likelihood of offending while on release. Mr. Handlarski submits that COVID-19 has narrowed the strike zone of what constitutes a substantial likelihood of committing further offences. He rests his argument on the following passage from the decision of Goodman J., in R. v. King, 2020 ONSC 1935 at paragraph 60:

While the consideration of this risk factor in J.S. is focused under the tertiary ground, I would go further and find that the jeopardy and risk posed to inmates from COVID-19 while incarcerated in detention centres awaiting trials (that are currently suspended) is also a valid factor when considering the secondary grounds for detention; in particular for non-violent offenders on a bail review.

[60] Goodman J. adds in a footnote: “I do neither opine nor direct as to whether such considerations ought to prevail at the initial show cause hearing, but suggest that it is common sense for judicial officers to consider all of the current realities.”

[61] I do not read the decision in King as altering the criteria for release under the secondary ground. Factors relevant to COVID-19 do not directly apply to public safety considerations and the statutory criteria remain in full effect: See R. v. Morgan, 2020 ONCA 209 at paragraph 11; R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 2237 at paragraph 125.

[62] There is, however, a wide ambit for discretion in matters relating to bail. That discretion during the pandemic has largely been exercised in favor of release, particularly for non-violent offenders or in cases where there are frailties in the Crown’s case. While I cannot accede to the submission that the pandemic has altered what constitutes a substantial likelihood, I would instead adopt the observation of Stribopoulos J. that, in close cases, this is not the time to err on the side of caution: See R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 2237 at paragraph 124.

Authorities Relied Upon by the Crown

[63] The Crown relies on the recent decision in R. v. Ibrahim, 2020 ONSC 2241. In Ibrahim, the 23-year-old applicant sought release on the charge of first-degree murder. The accused had no prior criminal record, no other outstanding charges and proposed to be released to live with his family while being subject to electronic monitoring. There was medical evidence that the accused had been diagnosed with asthma and feared exposure to the coronavirus while in custody. The accused was not alleged to have been present at the time of the murder but was identified as a party through circumstantial evidence. The defence argued on the bail application that the circumstantial evidence did not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the accused was party to an intention to kill; it also permitted a reasonable inference that the accused was party to a lesser offence such as robbery.

[64] The court in Ibrahim recognized that there was a legitimate question whether the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the accused was a party to a murder. The court noted, however, that there was no evidence that the deceased was shot in the course of a drug deal or attempted robbery; rather, the evidence was entirely and solely consistent with a planned execution. The same can be said of this case.

[65] There was evidence that the accused in Ibrahim led a secret, perhaps criminal lifestyle which was unknown to his sureties. This is arguably balanced in the Applicant’s case by the fact that the Applicant has incurred an additional drug charge while in custody.

[66] Bird J. concluded in Ibrahim that the applicant had failed to meet his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds. While every bail application turns on its facts, Ibrahim is a well-reasoned judgment which considered almost identical circumstances to the case at bar, including evidence regarding the potential hazards of a COVID-19 outbreak in the jails.

[67] The Crown also relies upon Cavanaugh J.’s decision in the case of the applicant’s co-accused, Michael Smith. Cavanaugh J. detained Mr. Smith on both the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the seriousness of the charge and the manner in which the offence took place: See R. v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 1889 at paragraph 69. Those factors apply with equal force to the Applicant.

[68] The Smith decision is distinguishable on the basis that the accused did have a prior criminal record which included eleven convictions for breaching court orders. The case is nevertheless a helpful guide with respect to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which that impacts on the likelihood that the accused will commit further offences if released.

Authorities Relied Upon by the Defence

[69] Mr. Handlarski relies on R. v. J.A., 2020 ONSC 2312. J.A. also has significant factual similarities to the case at bar. The applicant was charged with first-degree murder, was not present at the time of the murder and had no criminal record. J.A. was detained at his initial bail hearing and that detention order was upheld on review by the Court of Appeal. His preliminary inquiry had been suspended as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and, as of the time of his second application, he had been in custody for over 18 months. In releasing the accused, Goodman J. said:

[122] I confess that this decision is a close call. In adding the COVID-19 pandemic into the proposed release plan’s “mix”, as expressed in the recent jurisprudence, along with some diminution to the strength of the prosecution’s case, I am persuaded that the applicant has met his onus. In my opinion, the decidedly restrictive release plan proffered by the applicant will address the Crown’s primary and secondary ground concerns.

[70] While there are similarities between the case at bar and J.A., the case is distinguishable based on the finding that the sureties in J.A. were strong and weaknesses had developed in the Crown’s case. The strength of the Crown’s case is a particularly important factor in deciding bail in homicide cases.

Conclusion on the Secondary Ground

[71] In Morales, the Supreme Court of Canada described the test for detention under the secondary ground as follows:

Bail is denied only for those who pose a "substantial likelihood" of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice, and only where this "substantial likelihood" endangers "the protection or safety of the public". Moreover, detention is justified only when it is "necessary" for public safety.

R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711 at page 33

[72] The applicant is alleged to have directly participated in the planned and deliberate execution of a helpless victim. The brutality of the offence itself gives rise to concerns that the applicant would commit further offences if released. The fact that the applicant has allegedly committed a further offence while in custody exacerbates that concern and there is no evidence of a work history or educational background to alleviate it.

[73] The proposed release plan is inadequate to counter the substantial likelihood that the accused, if released, will commit a criminal offence which will endanger the protection or safety of the public.

[74] The Applicant has not met his onus on the secondary ground and will be detained.

The Tertiary Ground

[75] Cavanaugh J. reviewed the factors relevant to the tertiary ground in the companion case of Smith. I concur with his findings and adopt them here: See R. v. Smith, 2020 ONSC 1889 at paragraphs 71 to 76. I would add two additional points.

[76] Although the three grounds for detention set out in section 510 of the Criminal Code are distinct, there will often be an overlap in the evidence and findings which pertain to the grounds. The court’s findings on the primary and secondary grounds often inform the court’s conclusion on the tertiary grounds. A strong surety and good release plan would tend to instill confidence in the eyes of a reasonable member of the community: See R. v. Dang, 2025 ONSC 4254 at paragraph 57. The release plan proposed in this case would not provide the required degree of confidence. A reasonable member of the public would take into account that the Applicant's principal surety attempted to mislead the court during his bail hearing. Releasing the accused into the community under the supervision of a surety who has demonstrated himself to be unreliable would significantly lessen public confidence in the justice system.

[77] Secondly, the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence present a particular challenge to maintaining the public's confidence in the administration of justice. The Crown alleges that this murder was motivated by gang warfare. Dayne Sitladeen posted a rap video on the day of the homicide celebrating having shot someone in a rival neighbourhood. While this motive may seem so senseless that one would initially dispel it as being unlikely or impossible, experience has shown that it is a real and shockingly common motive for murder in the Greater Toronto Area. Many innocent citizens have been injured or killed as a result of indiscriminate shootings conducted in furtherance of absurd territorial warfare.

[78] A reasonable member of the community would take note of the circumstances of this homicide and would express dismay or worse if an accused person, who is clearly involved at some level in such a homicide, could be released into the community under the supervision of a potentially unreliable surety.

[79] For these reasons, I find that detention is also necessary under the tertiary grounds.

Justice Peter Bawden Released: May 6, 2020