Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR-20-50000233-00BR Date: 2020-07-03 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty The Queen – and – Ferenc Feher, Applicant
Counsel: Simon Heeney, for the Crown Howard C. Cohen, for the Applicant
Heard: June 25, 2020
Reasons for Ruling
B.P. O’Marra J.
[1]
Introduction
The accused applied to review the Detention Order made in the Ontario Court of Justice on May 26, 2020. On June 25, 2020 I heard the submissions of counsel based on materials they had filed. On June 26, 2020 I released a ruling that the accused be released on terms that included three sureties pledging a total of $25,000 without deposit. The following are my reasons.
[2]
The Original Bail Hearing
The presiding justice at the original bail hearing carefully reviewed the applicable law, the allegations on the current charges, the other outstanding charges, the criminal record and background of the accused and the proposed plan of release. He was satisfied that the primary grounds could be addressed and a release could be fashioned if that were the only concern. In terms of the secondary grounds he referred to the Crown's case as "somewhat robust". Based on the criminal antecedents and outstanding charges on this reverse onus hearing he properly indicated that a strong release plan would be required for the court to have confidence on the secondary grounds. He was not satisfied that the proposed plan appropriately managed the secondary ground concerns. A significant aspect of that plan was that the mother of the accused would be the key residential surety. She had not functioned well as his surety on prior occasions. The court also had concerns with another proposed surety. In the circumstances the court held that the accused had not met the onus on the secondary grounds and his continued detention was ordered. On that basis it was not necessary to address the tertiary grounds.
[3]
The Charges and Allegations
The accused faces a number of serious charges with an offence date of April 17, 2020. The charges include extortion, forcible confinement, carry concealed weapon, possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence, occupy a motor vehicle while in possession of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm and uttering threats. The allegations are that the accused and another person confined and threatened another person in order to obtain money. The victim later provided an extensive statement to the police. He described a firearm that was used in the incident but none was recovered by the police. The accused surrendered himself to police on May 19, 2020.
[4]
Criminal Record and Outstanding Charges
The accused has a criminal record and other outstanding charges. He was convicted of Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle with an offence date of November 23, 2017 and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance with an offence date of November 13, 2018. He was fined on both charges and placed on probation for the driving offence. He faces the following outstanding charges: Theft from the Mail, Mischief Under $5000, Possession Under $5000, Drive Suspended with an offence date of June 26, 2018. He was released on an Appearance Notice on those charges. He also faces charges of Fail to Appear in Court, four counts, with offence dates of September 13, 2018, August 19, 2019, October 24, 2019 and February 13, 2020. Those charges are returnable on August 27, 2020 and are subject to a global release order including house arrest terms.
[5]
The Proposed Plan of Release
Peterne Gallyas is the new additional surety in the proposed plan of release. She does not have a criminal record or any outstanding charges. She has known the accused and his family since 2012. The accused was in a relationship with her daughter for a year and they lived with her for a period of time. Ms. Gallyas has resided in a one bedroom apartment for almost six years. The plan is for the accused to sleep on a couch and go out to work as a landscaper with one of his other sureties each day. Ms. Gallyas has been on disability benefits since 2018 due to nerve issues. She has acted as a surety in the past and is aware of her obligations. She is aware of the criminal record of the accused and is prepared to pledge $5000 without deposit to ensure his compliance with the terms of bail.
[6]
Analysis and Decision
Notwithstanding the outstanding charges of failing to appear in court the presiding justice at first instance and the Crown did not oppose release on the primary grounds. On this review the parties focused their submissions on the secondary grounds and the new proposed plan of release. The Crown on this review adopted the view of the justice at the original hearing that the accused was releasable but the proposed plan and sureties were inadequate. Based on the evidence presented on this review I am satisfied that the new residential surety is ready, willing and able to carry out her obligations. That combines with another surety who will keep the accused busy each day as a landscaper. The terms that I outlined in my ruling of June 26, 2020 include that the accused must be in the presence of one of his sureties at all times when he is not in the home of Ms. Gallyas. The other terms include non-contact with a list of persons provided by the Crown, he is to have a copy of this release order in his personal possession at all times when he is not in the home of his residential surety and not to possess firearms, ammunition or explosives.
7The accused should bear in mind that any breach of any of the terms of release will make a future bail order unlikely and render the sureties liable for the amounts they have pledged to secure his release. I am grateful for the assistance of both counsel on this matter.
Released: July 03, 2020 B.P. O’Marra J.