Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-10000095-00BR DATE: 20200708 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent – and – DANNA MILLAN Applicant/Accused

Counsel: Meghan Scott and Alexander Merenda, for the Crown Marianne Salih and Will Rosemond, for the Applicant/Accused

HEARD: April 16, 2020

BEFORE: B.P. O’Marra J.

Reasons on a Bail Review

[1] The accused faces a long list of very serious charges arising from a single incident on February 1, 2020 that includes two counts of possession of illegal drugs for the purpose of trafficking, several firearms offences, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, robbery, extortion, conspiracy to commit indictable offences and uttering threats. It is alleged that she played a key role in enticing the victim into a situation where he was confined, beaten, threatened, extorted and robbed. It is alleged that the victim suffered a broken jaw in the course of the incident. There appears to be a significant overlap of certain offences but on any view the allegations including brandishing a firearm are very serious. The accused is alleged to have acted in concert with four men, two who have been arrested and two others currently unknown.

[2] The accused is 22 years old and does not have a record of prior criminal convictions. She was not awaiting trial on any other charges at the time of these alleged offences. The original bail hearing was held on February 11 and 12, 2020. The presiding justice ordered detention on the tertiary grounds on February 19, 2020. On April 16, 2020 I heard an application to review the Detention Order based on a material change of circumstances. On April 17, 2020 I made a ruling setting aside the Detention Order and setting out terms of release. I am now providing further reasons for my ruling.

[3] The Crown fairly acknowledged that the advent of the Covid-19 crisis since the original bail hearing constitutes a material change in circumstances. Notwithstanding that the Crown continues to oppose release on the tertiary grounds. That is not an unreasonable position in light of the allegations. A further change in circumstances is that a third potential surety was added to the plan of release. The mother of the accused now joins with the two sureties proposed at the initial hearing.

[4] I was advised that one of the men who is co-accused with Ms. Millan was released after a contested bail hearing on February 24, 2020. He was alleged to have been a significant player in the series of alleged offences. The statutory notion of parity that must be considered on sentence has no parallel at the bail stage. I have no information as to the criminal antecedents of the co-accused or his personal circumstances. What I do know is that his involvement in the alleged offences was no less than that alleged against Ms. Millan.

[5] In terms of the Covid-19 issue the accused expressed generalized anxiety about being in a custodial setting in the midst of the pandemic. She did not claim any underlying health issues that would potentially increase the potential impact of infection on her. She shared a cell with another inmate but was later moved to a cell where she was alone. She made no specific complaints about the way custodial staff are dealing with this challenging situation.

[6] The proposed plan of release provided for three sureties without deposit but with pledges of specified amounts. The terms included strict house arrest with specific exceptions when she must be in the company of one of her sureties. There were also to be terms of non-contact with witnesses and co-accused as well as no weapons and no illegal drugs.

[7] The parties on this review properly focused their submissions on the tertiary grounds. The accused is young and has no criminal record or other outstanding charges. Three sureties closely connected to the accused have come forward to pledge their commitment to maintain control over the accused while she is on bail. They include her mother who was not proposed as a surety at the original bail hearing. Her mother now has a different work schedule that allows her to fulfill this role. I will assume that the Crown has a viable case against the accused in regard to many of the alleged offences. If she is convicted of a representative sample of the offences she faces lengthy sentences. The alleged offences include firearms counts although I understand that she is charged as a party rather than a principal on those charges. I am satisfied in the circumstances that detention is not required on the tertiary ground based significantly on the proposed plan of release. I am satisfied that a reasonable member of the public, well informed of the proposed plan of release and the presumption of innocence, would not have diminished confidence in the proper administration of justice by a release order. The Covid-19 issue is not a significant factor in this matter.

[8] Counsel for the accused should impress upon her the grave consequences for her and the sureties of an alleged breach of any of the terms of this release.

O’Marra J.

B.P. O’MARRA J.

Released: July 8, 2020