Introduction

[1] Gary Johnson is entitled to a review of his detention pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code. He seeks an order granting his release on his own recognizance with one surety and on certain terms.

[2] Mr. Johnson has been in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC") since September 1, 2020, the day of his arrest. He is facing a number of charges including possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and unauthorized possession of a firearm and related firearms charges.

[3] Mr. Johnson was detained by Justice of the Peace Madigan on September 22, 2020 after a contested show cause hearing. Before Justice of the Peace Madigan, Mr. Johnson's father, Lascelles Johnson, was the only proposed surety. His Worship ruled that Mr. Johnson failed to meet his onus to justify his release on the secondary and tertiary grounds due to the inadequacy of the bail plan.

Proposed Plan of Release

[4] The proposed plan of release before this Court is different. There is still only one proposed surety, but now there is a new surety, Whoston Wray, who is prepared to pledge $10,000, with no-deposit, to secure Mr. Johnson's release. Mr. Wray is a family friend of Mr. Johnson's mother, Rose Johnson, and he has known Mr. Johnson since he was a child. Mr. Wray worked with Ms. Johnson in the health care industry.

[5] The proposed plan of supervision is that Mr. Johnson would live with Mr. Wray at his home in Brampton, Ontario. Mr. Wray would supervise him in the home but not when Mr. Johnson is out, save for using location services on his cell phone to track where he is and by video WhatsApp calls to be able to determine where he is at any time.

The Allegations

[6] As already stated, Mr. Johnson is charged with a number of offences related to possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In addition, he is charged with failing to comply with his recognizance entered into on July 3, 2018, as a result of this alleged possession of a firearm. At the time that he entered into that recognizance, Mr. Johnson was charged with trafficking in cocaine on three occasions in March 2018, which charge has been resolved, as I will come to.

[7] In August 2020, police were conducting surveillance of Mr. Johnson and these observations involved short meetings and a potential hand–to–hand transaction. On August 31, 2020, the Toronto Police Service obtained two Criminal Code search warrants for a vehicle and 151 Charlton Settlement Avenue, Toronto, where Mr. Johnson was living with his parents and a brother. On September 1, 2020, officers located Mr. Johnson at a 7-Eleven convenience store located at 1390 Weston Road and placed him under arrest on the strength of the warrant.

[8] Both search warrants were executed on September 1, 2020. A small quantity of fentanyl (0.1 grams) was found in the vehicle, and a loaded Taurus G2SC 9mm handgun was found in a fanny-pack in a dresser drawer in Mr. Johnson’s bedroom. The firearm was loaded with 7 rounds of 9mm ammunition. Three .40 calibre bullets were also found in the fanny-pack. Five 9mm bullets in another magazine were found in a Taurus box in the same bedroom. Mr. Johnson’s father and his brother have given statements to police that the bedroom in question was Mr. Johnson’s bedroom and that they did not know a firearm was there.

[9] Mr. Johnson was being investigated as part of a larger criminal organization investigation, but he is not alleged to have been trafficking in association with any criminal organization.

[10] The case is in the early stages at the Ontario Court of Justice. A Judicial Pre-Trial was held on November 10, 2020 with Justice Grinberg. A one-day discovery is set for February 5, 2021.

The Decision of Justice of the Peace Madigan

[11] The show cause hearing proceeded before Justice of the Peace Madigan as a reverse onus hearing and he heard the evidence of Mr. Johnson’s father who was the sole proposed surety who was offering to supervise his son 24/7 as he is retired. Justice of the Peace Madigan concluded that the plan presented was not sufficient due primarily to the “very dysfunctional relationship” between Mr. Johnson and his father. He had a number of concerns with respect to Mr. Johnson Sr. as a surety including: the fact that he was likely to be a witness against his son for the purpose of identifying his son’s bedroom, where the firearm was found; the fact that a pre-sentence report prepared for the March 2018 allegations states that Mr. Johnson accused his father of physically abusing him when he was a young boy, and the fact there was a violent altercation when Mr. Johnson assaulted his father with a baseball bat and forced him to retreat when his father tried to restrain him from driving while intoxicated by alcohol; and finally, that Mr. Johnson’s father did not know many significant things about his son including the fact that on that day his son had admitted to trafficking in cocaine. Justice of the Peace Madigan concluded that he was doubtful that such a relationship would be successful in protecting the public and making sure that Mr. Johnson was properly supervised. Justice of the Peace Madigan also referred to the fact that Mr. Johnson is alleged to have breached his drug bail in a very serious way by adding weapons charges, which constitutes a new set of charges in addition to the fentanyl charge.

[12] Justice of the Peace Madigan did say that had there been a different surety that he might have come to a different conclusion, but that the plan put forward before him “with all the complications between this particular surety and this particular accused, it is not workable, and I could not be satisfied that my serious secondary and tertiary ground concerns would be adequately addressed by the plan”. On the tertiary ground, he added that “the risk of a failure to supervise is so great I think the public would be justifiably outraged” and that the four factors were to “a great extent satisfied” and given the “significant potential for incarceration, and basically drugs and serious weapons charges. These all paint a picture of potential for significant incarceration”. Accordingly, Justice of the Peace Madigan ordered Mr. Johnson’s continued detention on the secondary and, in the alternative, on the tertiary ground.

The Evidence on this Hearing

Information about Mr. Johnson

[13] The evidence before me included the transcript of the evidence of Mr. Johnson’s father, the Informations and an affidavit from the new proposed surety, Whoston Wray, who was also examined before me. Mr. Johnson did not file an affidavit, but he did make a few comments in answer to a few of my questions.

[14] I understand that Mr. Johnson is 34 years old. He is a Canadian citizen. He suffers from depression, for which he is taking medication. His father testified in the show cause hearing that he believes his son also suffers from bipolar disorder, but this was denied by Mr. Johnson in his comments to me at the end of the hearing. Mr. Johnson is addicted to alcohol and drugs. In answers to questions I asked of Mr. Wray, I learned that Mr. Johnson was on a methadone program, presumably because of an addiction to heroin. Mr. Johnson advised that he has been able to continue this program while at the TSDC, although based on information from Ms. Bristow it may be that he has been given an equivalent to methadone. In any event that is some positive information.

[15] Ms. Bristow submitted in her materials that “Mr. Johnson is motivated to work on his addiction issues and has submitted multiple applications to enroll in substance abuse counselling”, and that he has made two applications to rehabilitation facilities while in custody but is unable to access additional resources that are available to him if he was in the community. Mr. Krueger did not object to these submissions, but the fact is that I do not have these statements as evidence from Mr. Johnson nor do I have any details of these “multiple applications”. In fact, Mr. Johnson Sr. testified that his son has never expressed an interest in rehabilitation until he was incarcerated, although I appreciate that Mr. Johnson has never been incarcerated for this long before.

[16] This is the only information I have about Mr. Johnson although he told me in his remarks at the end of the hearing that he has two young children. I have no idea what education Mr. Johnson has or whether he was working or going to school at the time of his arrest or anything of that nature.

[17] Mr. Johnson has one entry on his criminal record. On September 22, 2020 he pleaded guilty to a global count of trafficking cocaine before Justice McMahon. The plea included the three transactions in March 2018. He was sentenced to seven months custody less time served and completed his sentence on January 11, 2021.

Evidence of Whoston Wray

[18] Mr. Wray is 55 years old and is willing to pledge $10,000 for Mr. Johnson's release. He was not asked to be a surety earlier although he did know about the charges. He lives in Brampton in a four-bedroom home. Two men, both seniors, are moving in as borders into two of the bedrooms and it is proposed that Mr. Johnson would occupy the fourth bedroom. One is 75 and the other 69 and both are retired. Mr. Wray has spoken to these men about the release plan and told them about the outstanding charges Mr. Johnson is facing and his criminal record and he testified that they were agreeable to having Mr. Johnson live in the home. Mr. Wray has advised them to let him know if there are any issues should Mr. Johnson come to live in the house. These two men are strangers to Mr. Wray and were referred to him by a friend. I have no other information about them.

[19] Mr. Wray is self-employed and owns and operates the Rhapsody Lodge Retirement Home in Brampton, which is approximately 20 minutes from his home. He testified that his hours at the retirement home vary but that they are flexible. Some days he does not go in at all. Mr. Wray worked at the Toronto General Hospital for 30 years and he sometimes helps out at the retirement home if he is short staffed. Fortunately, they have not had any COVID-19 outbreaks, but Mr. Wray fairly admitted that should that occur, he would have to spend more time there.

[20] Mr. Wray deposed that Mr. Johnson has always been respectful with him and that he knows that Mr. Johnson is facing very serious charges and he is aware of his criminal record. He also deposed that he has spoken with Mr. Johnson since his arrest, and made it clear to him that if he is going to be his surety, that abiding by the conditions of the court and the house rules are non-negotiable and that he was assured by Mr. Johnson that there will be no problems. In addition, Mr. Wray is aware of the fact that Mr. Johnson has mental health issues and he testified that if Mr. Johnson is released, he will ensure that Mr. Johnson continues with his efforts to find a rehabilitation program and he will monitor his treatment plan. He stated that there are addiction programs in Brampton, but Mr. Wray did not know if and when Mr. Johnson would be able to participate in them. He has no alcohol in the house and would ensure Mr. Johnson does not drink or use any illicit drugs.

[21] Mr. Wray has been a surety several times before, although never before for Mr. Johnson. He has called the police on people he has supervised before, and as a result has not lost any money that he pledged. He is currently not acting as a surety for anyone else. Mr. Wray is willing to do whatever is necessary to make sure Mr. Johnson follows every one of his release conditions.

[22] Mr. Wray proposed that Mr. Johnson would be able to leave his home for appointments or go to Toronto to visit his mother on his own and he said that he would use a location app on Mr. Johnson’s phone and his own phone to track his movements. When I asked Mr. Johnson a couple of questions, after hearing the evidence from Mr. Wray and the submissions of counsel, he advised that he has two children that he would also want to visit, from different mothers, one who is four and the other is 10, living in Brampton and Toronto. No evidence of this was given either by Mr. Johnson’s father or Mr. Wray so this information came as a surprise.

[23] Mr. Wray advised that Mr. Johnson has a psychiatrist, but he assumes that his appointments for now would be virtual or by phone. If Mr. Johnson had to leave the house for an appointment, Mr. Wray said that he would determine how long he should be away and if he did not return when he ought to be back, he would call police. He would monitor his prescriptions to ensure he was taking them as required and would also use WhatsApp so he could check where Mr. Johnson was as that app shows his surroundings. Mr. Wray is also prepared to search Mr. Johnson’s belongings and his room to ensure he does not have anything that he should not have and check his phone to see who he has been in touch with. He asked that this Court impose terms on Mr. Johnson to require him to share the password to his phone and all social media passwords.

The Positions of Counsel

[24] Mr. Krueger submitted that Mr. Johnson may be releasable but not on the proposed plan of release which, in his view, is not a better plan and in fact might be weaker than the plan put forward before the Justice of the Peace. It is his position that Mr. Johnson should be detained on both the secondary and tertiary grounds. Although he accepted that Mr. Wray is well-intentioned, he argued that if Mr. Johnson’s parents could not supervise their son such that he had a loaded firearm in his room they were unaware of, it was difficult to see how Mr. Wary could do a better job. Mr. Krueger is also concerned about the boarders who at times would be alone with Mr. Johnson in the house. It is his position that Mr. Johnson requires full-time supervision and that there are strong tertiary ground concerns, particularly given the seriousness of the charges.

[25] Ms. Bristow’s position is that the plan is a strong one with a strong surety. She submitted that house arrest could be imposed and that any risk of reoffence would be mitigated substantially because Mr. Johnson would now be in a different jurisdiction, away from the high crime area where he was living, and where his prior drug trafficking occurred. On the tertiary ground she referred to the well-known adverse effects of pre-trial detention, Mr. Johnson’s mental health issues and the fact that with COVID-19 rules at the TSDC, her ability to meet with him to prepare his defence has been significantly curtailed.

Analysis

General Principals

[26] Mr. Johnson is presumed innocent and he has a constitutional right to bail unless there is just cause to deny it, as guaranteed by s. 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that detention pending trial should not ever become the norm: see R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 509, and R. v. Myers, 2019 SCC 18, 438 D.L.R. (4th) 60. As Wagner J. (as he then was) stated in R. v. St. Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328 at para. 70, with respect to a person charged with a crime, even very serious crimes, it is important “not to overlook the fact that, in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception”. The exception being where detention is justified on one of the grounds set out in s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code: St. Cloud, at para. 113.

[27] Mr. Johnson is entitled to be released on the least restrictive form of bail and conditions that address the concerns of s. 515 of the Criminal Code; see Antic, at para. 67(g). This was reinforced recently in R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14, [2020] S.C.J. No. 14 at para. 6:

All those involved in the bail system are to be guided by the principles of restraint and review when imposing or enforcing bail conditions. The principle of restraint requires any conditions of bail to be clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused's risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10).

General Bail Principles to Consider on a s. 525 hearing

[28] Given the language of s. 525 of the Criminal Code, the issue before me is whether the continued detention of Mr. Johnson is justified within the meaning of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code. Myers, at para. 46. Section 525 (4) of the Criminal Code provides that following the detention review hearing “if the judge is not satisfied that the continued detention of the accused is justified within the meaning of sub-section 515(10), the judge shall order that the accused be released from custody pending the trial of the charge.” [Emphasis added]

[29] Although Mr. Johnson bore the onus before Justice of the Peace Madigan, I agree with the views of Schreck J. who held in R. v. G.F., [2020] O.J. No. 2434, at para. 4, that my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Johnson’s continued detention is justified does not depend on whether one or the other party discharges any onus. This is consistent with the statement of Wagner C.J., writing for a unanimous court, in Myers at para. 4, that Parliament intended s. 525 to operate as a safeguard. This, in turn, is consistent with Parliament’s “overarching vision” of the Bail Reform Act, which was the creation of “a liberal and enlightened system of pre-trial release where individuals would normally be granted bail”: Myers at para. 22.

[30] Chief Justice Wagner stated, at para. 24 in Myers, that “… courts across Canada share the overarching consensus that the purpose of the s. 525 hearing is to prevent accused persons from languishing in pre-trial custody and to ensure a prompt trial.”

[31] In light of these principles, I must consider both the secondary and tertiary grounds to determine if the continued detention of Mr. Johnson is justified.

The Secondary Ground

[32] Chief Justice Lamer set out the test in R. v. Morales (1992), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, 77 C.C.C. (3d) 91 (S.C.C.) at para. 39, that I will apply in considering the secondary ground, where he observed:

…. Bail is not denied for all individuals who pose a risk of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice while on bail. 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. It is not justified where detention would merely be convenient or advantageous. [Emphasis added]

[33] I accept Ms. Bristow’s position that moving Mr. Johnson to Brampton, away from the area where he admitted that he was trafficking in cocaine in March 2018 and from the place where he was living and where the outstanding charges occurred, reduces his risk of reoffending. I also find that Mr. Wray is a strong, well-intentioned surety. I do not accept Mr. Krueger’s submission that if Mr. Johnson’s parents were unable to supervise their son that Mr. Wray would not be able to. He made it very clear that he would pull Mr. Johnson’s bail if he breached the terms of his release in any way. However, the plan before Justice of the Peace Madigan was 24/7 supervision of Mr. Johnson by his father who is retired. Although Mr. Wray is a stronger surety, he is not able to supervise Mr. Johnson personally 24/7. There would be periods when Mr. Johnson is not with him.

[34] In my view, if released on the proposed plan of release, even with any additional terms I might impose, such as house arrest, I am concerned that notwithstanding the best intentions of Mr. Wray that Mr. Johnson might reoffend. Simply put, I am concerned that Mr. Wray will not be able to provide the level of supervision of Mr. Johnson that is necessary to ensure that he does not reengage in drug trafficking or some other illegal activity. Under the current proposed plan, Mr. Johnson would remain idle in Mr. Wray’s home, with really nothing to do to occupy his time and he would be in the presence of the two boarders that I know nothing about. The prospect of Mr. Johnson participating in a rehabilitation program for alcohol and drug addiction is speculative at this stage. Furthermore, even though Mr. Wray is able to stay home for the most part now, that could change at any time given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Should anyone connected to the retirement home become infected, Mr. Wray would have no choice but to devote most of his time to caring for the residents living there. Mr. Johnson of course could not be with him in the retirement home. Clearly, under this plan Mr. Johnson would not be supervised for periods of time when he could leave the home and travel to Toronto or wherever. Even if Mr. Wray was able to tell where Mr. Johnson was with a location app, he would have no idea what he was doing.

[35] In summary, I have a lot of concerns about the strength of the release plan. However, the secondary ground is only engaged if there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Johnson would commit an offence and that that offence would endanger the protection or safety of the public. I have no doubt that drug trafficking with or without a firearm endangers the protection and safety of the public. However, Mr. Johnson is 34 and he only has one conviction on his record for drug trafficking that dates back to March 2018. On the evidence before me I could not conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Johnson would reoffend should he be released with Mr. Wray as surety, even on the terms proposed that I have concerns about.

[36] For these reasons, despite the concerns I have about the strength of the release plan, I find that Mr. Johnson’s continued detention is not justified on the secondary ground.

The Tertiary Ground

[37] I turn then to the tertiary ground and the four factors enumerated in s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code. In St. Cloud, Wagner J. set out the principles which must guide this Court in the application of the four statutory factors, which include the principle that a court must not order detention automatically even where the four listed factors support such a result. At para. 69, Justice Wagner made it clear that the four listed factors are simply the main factors to be balanced together with any other relevant factors, in determining whether detention is necessary in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice in this country.

[38] There is not one way to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. It may be undermined if a justice declines to order the interim detention of a defendant in circumstances that justify detention, but also if a justice orders detention where such a result is not justified: St. Cloud, at para. 86.

[39] At para. 87, Wagner J. stated that the perspective of the public 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, although this person is not a legal expert and is not able to appreciate the subtleties of the various defences that are available to the defendant.

[40] Finally, at para. 88, Wagner J. stated that:

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. [Emphasis added]

[41] Turning to the first factor, the Crown’s case appears to be very strong. Absent a successful Charter challenge to the search warrant of the home, the evidence is very strong that Mr. Johnson was in actual possession of a loaded firearm. As for the drug charge, it may be that Mr. Johnson was in possession of the fentanyl for personal use, as opposed to trafficking but again, absent a successful Charter challenge, assuming the vehicle was his vehicle, the Crown’s case that he was at least in possession of fentanyl is strong. The same is true of the breach of recognizance charge.

[42] Turning to the second factor, there is no doubt that Mr. Johnson is charged with very serious offences. The Crown filed statistics about gun violence in the city of Toronto and I have seen this evidence in other bail applications. In my view that evidence is not necessary. Judges can be assumed to know what is happening in their community and one only has to listen to the news to know that despite COVID-19 and stay-at-home orders, gun violence continues to be a serious problem in Toronto and elsewhere. There is as well the possible combination of the loaded firearm and drug trafficking which makes the charges even more serious, particularly a toxic drug like fentanyl that is responsible for so many overdoses. In addition, the allegation that Mr. Johnson was in breach of the terms of his release is also serious.

[43] The third factor requires a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether or not a firearm was used. There is no evidence that the firearm was used, or for that matter that it was connected to any crime. It was being kept in his bedroom, but it still posed a danger to anyone in the home as it was loaded. In St-Cloud, Justice Wagner, at para. 71, stated that the personal circumstances of the defendant are a factor as well as the status of the victim. Fortunately, there was no victim in this case. As for Mr. Johnson’s circumstances, the fact it appears that he is addicted to heroin/fentanyl would be a consideration, at least with respect to the drug charge. Finally, with respect to the fourth factor, there is no doubt that Mr. Johnson will face a lengthy term of imprisonment if convicted.

[44] Although the four main factors favour detention, that does not mean that Mr. Johnson’s continued detention is automatic. In balancing these factors and considering whether or not Mr. Johnson’s detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, I can consider the plan of release proposed. Although the tertiary ground provides a distinct basis for pre-trial detention from the secondary ground, and I must be careful not to conflate the two, the strength of the plan of release is a relevant factor on the tertiary ground; see R. v. Dang, 2015 ONSC 4254, 122 W.C.B. (2d) 479, at para. 58. Unfortunately in this case, I have found that the plan of release is not very strong in that there will be periods of time when Mr. Johnson is not being supervised by his surety. I am concerned that public confidence in the administration of justice will not be maintained by a “reasonable and knowledgeable member of the community” given the seriousness of the offences Mr. Johnson is charged with and the plan that he be released into the community without constant supervision.

[45] I accept the submission that Mr. Johnson’s continued detention has affected his ability to enroll in substance abuse counselling, but without hearing about this from Mr. Johnson, it is difficult to assess his sincerity about rehabilitation. I would have expected an actual plan be proposed for what programs he has applied to or intends to apply to, when he might be accepted, etc. should he be living in Brampton, but at this stage there are no specific plans that I can assess. Furthermore, I am concerned that Mr. Johnson had not made use of these types of resources in the past and although it may be that his time in custody has been instrumental in him recognizing the need to address his mental health and substance abuse issues, as submitted by Ms. Bristow, I would have preferred to hear that from Mr. Johnson, under oath.

[46] Although Ms. Bristow also submitted in her materials that Mr. Johnson is unable to see his two young children, no mention of his children was made during the hearing until Mr. Johnson told me that he would want to visit them. I appreciate that pre-trial detention can have devastating effects on a person’s health and parental obligations, but I have no evidence as to how involved Mr. Johnson was in the past with his children and I find it surprising that no mention of them was made during the evidence of Mr. Johnson Sr. before Justice of the Peace Madigan or by Mr. Wray before me. Mr. Wray only mentioned Mr. Johnson travelling to Toronto to visit his mother.

[47] I also accept the information from Ms. Bristow that there are now restrictions on counsel videoconference visits at the TSDC, which means that Mr. Johnson is only able to consult with counsel in 20-minute increments and that this has a serious prejudicial effect on his ability to raise a defence. I do not know what the reason for this restriction is and whether or not it is related to COVID-19, but in my view this type of restriction is not justified regardless, and it is part of why we consider the detrimental impact of pre-trial detention on a defendant. It is a factor to consider.

[48] Finally, I considered the impact of COVID-19. There is no evidence that Mr. Johnson is particularly susceptible to serious consequences should he become infected, but I accept that he is at a higher risk of becoming infected while incarcerated given the inability to maintain social distancing in a jail. In R. v. Smith-Alexander, 2020 ONSC 2946, at para. 102, I stated that if there are no primary ground concerns and the secondary ground is satisfied with a strict release plan that ensures that a defendant can be adequately supervised to protect the public from further risk, that in most cases, to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, release on stringent terms ought to be ordered, notwithstanding the strength of the usual four factors that might otherwise justify detention on the tertiary ground.

[49] The difficulty in this case is that the tertiary grounds favouring pre-trial detention are strong and I have not been presented with a strict release plan that in my opinion adequately supervises Mr. Johnson. If he could propose a plan where he was released on strict house arrest, either with a solid surety who would be able to supervise him 24/7 or by being subject to GPS monitoring, then I might well have come to a different conclusion. I agree that depending on the strength of the plan of release, that as intimated by Justice of the Peace Madigan and as stated by Mr. Krueger that Mr. Johnson might be releasable and in fact that would be in his best interests if it could be accomplished without risk to the public. Despite the strength of the tertiary grounds, the other factors favouring release, if combined with a strong release plan that would ensure Mr. Johnson does not pose a threat to public safety, would in my view not result in a reasonably informed member of the public having their confidence in the administration of justice undermined should he be released.

[50] Unfortunately, given my concerns about the strength of the release plan, for these reasons I have concluded that at this time, Mr. Johnson’s continued detention pending his trial is justified on the tertiary ground.

SPIES J.

Released: February 3, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-60000032-00BR

DATE: 20210203

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

GARY JOHNSON

decision on 90-day DETENTION review

Spies J.

Released: February 3, 2021

R. v. Johnson, 2021 ONSC 885

Case Summary

Introduction

Proposed Plan of Release

The Allegations

The Decision of Justice of the Peace Madigan

The Evidence on this Hearing

Information about Mr. Johnson

Evidence of Whoston Wray

The Positions of Counsel

Analysis

General Principals

General Bail Principles to Consider on a s. 525 hearing

The Secondary Ground

The Tertiary Ground

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 3

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 3