Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-22-0004-0000 Date: 2024-08-20

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton ON L9T 1Y7

Re: His Majesty the King And: Loic Aurel Simeu

Before: Conlan J.

Counsel: A. Stevenson, for the Crown S. Kimberg, for the Accused

Heard: August 19, 2024

Endorsement - Detention review hearing, section 525 CCC

[1] For the following reasons, despite the able submissions of Mr. Forte on behalf of Mr. Simeu, this Court declines to release Mr. Simeu on bail pending the completion of his sentencing. I conclude that Mr. Simeu’s continued detention is justified within the meaning of section 515(10) CCC.

[2] It is not the jurisdictional argument advanced by the Crown that motivates this decision. In fact, there is compelling jurisprudence to suggest that “the primary focus of s. 525 of the Criminal Code (Code) is to deal with delay while in custody and awaiting trial (which includes sentencing)”. R. v. Bowden, 2013 ABQB 178, at paragraph 1 – a decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke.

[3] I am prepared to assume, without firmly deciding, that this Court’s verdicts of guilty entered against Mr. Simeu are not an impediment to his release on bail under section 525 CCC.

[4] What motivates this Court’s decision, however, are three things.

[5] First, I am not comfortable with the bail plan being advanced on behalf of Mr. Simeu. It is essentially the same plan that was found to be unsatisfactory by Justice Kurz. This Court knows very little about the proposed surety, Mr. Simeu’s mother. She has not appeared before me. She has not testified before me. She has not provided any evidence before me that has been tested by cross-examination. As there is no suggestion by the defence that Mr. Simeu could reasonably be released on bail without a surety, it is imperative that the Court know more about this proposed surety. That knowledge is lacking.

[6] Second, I am not satisfied that any threats to the health and safety of Mr. Simeu while in custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“MCC”) could not be adequately addressed through other means, such as a transfer to another facility. While I appreciate the genuine concern about Mr. Simeu being a target if he requests protective custody at MCC, I do not agree that the same concern applies to a request for a transfer.

[7] Third, I do not think that there is a risk that Mr. Simeu will serve more time in pre-sentence custody than what a fit sentence would be for him. That is an important consideration, undoubtedly. R. v. Ahmad, 2017 ONSC 3364, at paragraphs 23 and 24 – a decision of Justice Himel.

[8] My preliminary assessment is that, for the offences involving N.C., Mr. Simeu is indeed a candidate for a time served disposition, or something very close to a time served disposition, as of the return date in early October 2024, when one considers that (i) this Court is likely to give Mr. Simeu the maximum credit available under section 719(3.1) CCC, and further (ii) this Court is likely to find that Mr. Simeu’s experience to date at MCC has been overly harsh such that a significant “Duncan credit” ought to be given, within the meaning of R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. That still leaves, however, the other findings of guilt involving the other victim, and it is common ground between counsel that there will be a joint submission (which this Court is unlikely to interfere with) that Mr. Simeu receive a sentence of 15 months in custody, consecutive, for those offences. There is, consequently, no risk that Mr. Simeu will end up serving too much effective time in pre-sentence custody as of early October 2024.

[9] If the sentencing is not completed on, or shortly after, the return date, then this Court will be very disappointed because it will mean that the system has failed Mr. Simeu. The case has been plagued with frustrating delays, both during the trial and now post-verdicts. Whatever one thinks about Mr. Simeu’s credibility as a witness, it cannot be disputed that he has languished in pre-sentence custody in a place that is notorious for intolerable conditions, and there is actual independent evidence before this Court to support some of Mr. Simeu’s allegations about his experience to date at MCC. I would then have to re-assess whether Mr. Simeu’s continued detention in custody remains justified, beyond early October 2024, awaiting final completion of the sentencing.

Conlan J. Released: August 20, 2024