R v. Charles, 2025 ONSC 1388

COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(P) 45/24

DATE: 2025/03/04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Respondent

Adam Bernstein, for the Crown

• and -

UNEEK CHARLES

Applicant

Breana Vandebeek, for Mr. Charles

HEARD: February 21, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL

Stribopoulos J:

Introduction

1Uneek Charles is charged with two counts of second-degree murder. The Crown alleges that he is responsible for the stabbing deaths of his father, Maxwell Charles, and another man, Jamal Holder. (For clarity, these reasons refer to various family members who share the same last name by their first names.)

2Uneek applies under section 522 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 for an order releasing him on bail. He bears the onus of demonstrating that his detention is unjustified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code. The Crown opposes Uneek's release on bail based on the secondary (s. 515(10)(b)) and tertiary grounds (s. 515(10)(c)).

3These reasons will proceed in four main sections. First, they will summarize the evidence available to the Crown to support the charges, given that the apparent strength of the prosecution's case is relevant to all three bases for denying bail. Next, they will detail Uneek's circumstances. Third, these reasons will describe the proposed release plan. Finally, applying the law to the circumstances of this case, these reasons will assess whether Uneek has demonstrated that his detention is unjustified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

I. The Evidence Available to the Crown

4In December 2019, Maxwell, his wife, Sandra Pereira, their son, Uneek (aged 20) and their daughter (aged 13) were residing in a townhouse in a public housing complex in Mississauga.

5Maxwell had long struggled with an addiction to crack cocaine, was a regular drug user, and had a criminal record, including for crimes of violence.

6Maxwell returned to the family's residence shortly after midnight on December 28, 2019. He was either in the company of or soon joined by another man, later identified as Mr. Holder, who, like him, had a lengthy criminal record, including for violent crimes.

7At the time, Sandra and the couple's daughter were in their respective upstairs bedrooms while Uneek played video games in the basement, which also served as his bedroom.

8After he arrived home, Maxwell went to Sandra's bedroom, where he turned the light on before removing $300 from her purse that he had given her earlier and said: "Don't say anything; I have somebody here." He then went back downstairs.

9Shortly after, Sandra could hear Maxwell arguing with another man in what sounded like their main-floor living room. She heard Maxwell say, "Get the fuck out of my house," and the other man responded: "I am going to spark this in your house." Sandra then heard Maxwell tell the man, "You're disrespecting my house and family."

10After that, Sandra reported hearing Maxwell tell Uneek to "stay in the basement" and overheard him apologizing to their daughter. Sandra responded to what she heard by yelling downstairs to Maxwell, telling him she would call the police. She then heard the man say: "She is a bitch for calling the police," followed by what sounded like a physical altercation which quickly moved outside and onto their front porch.

11After waiting a few seconds, Sandra went downstairs. Outside, she could see what appeared to be her husband fighting with another man; they were rolling around on the ground. Sandra also saw that Uneek was outside.

12In her initial statements on the day of the events, Sandra told police that when she saw Uneek outside, he appeared to be punching the other man. After seeing him, she told him to come inside, and he did.

13Uneek's younger sister told police she remained in her bedroom throughout the arguing she heard downstairs and that the last thing she heard before putting on her earphones was her mother telling her brother "to get back."

14During her evidence at the preliminary inquiry, however, Sandra testified to only seeing Uneek standing over the two men as though he was trying to separate them. When asked whether she saw Uneek holding a knife, Sandra insisted she had not.

15Sandra called 911 at 12:55 a.m. on December 28, 2019. She was frantic during that call. Uneek's voice was audible in the background of the 911 call. At one point, Sandra says: "Who grabbed the knife? ... [unintelligible] ... grab the knife." At the preliminary inquiry, she denied that she told anyone to "go grab the knife" and maintained that she was asking who had the knife because she was concerned that she and her son were still in danger.

16Eventually, Uneek took the phone, and when the 911 operator asked him what had happened, he told them that his father got into a fight and that: "He's bleeding, I don't know, stabbing and fighting, bleeding, I don't know." Asked if weapons were involved, he said: "I think so. I don't know for sure, but there's wounds and shit, so yeah, I think so." Uneek told the operator he was in the basement when the altercation occurred between his father and the other man.

17The police arrived within minutes of the 911 call. Not far from the townhouse, they found Mr. Holder lying on the ground in the middle of the complex, bleeding heavily and unresponsive. Although transported to the hospital, Mr. Holder died. The police located Maxwell's body on the front porch of the family's townhouse; he was pronounced dead at the scene.

18Post-mortem examinations of Maxwell and Mr. Holder revealed that each had died as a result of multiple stab wounds.

19Maxwell had three large, deep stab wounds grouped close together to the mid-left area of his back. Two of these proved fatal because they penetrated his heart, left lung and other vital organs. The third penetrated his sternum without entering the chest cavity. He also had multiple minor abrasions. There were no defensive wounds on Maxwell's arms or hands.

20Mr. Holder had multiple stab wounds to the front of his neck and torso. One penetrated the left side of his chest and his left lung—another penetrated his neck, incising his thyroid, trachea, and right jugular vein. There was also a stab wound to his back that penetrated his right lung. This collection of wounds caused Mr. Holder's death. There were other stab wounds to his neck, upper right back, and left shoulder. He had lacerations and abrasions on his head, torso and extremities. Finally, Mr. Holder had incised wounds on his right hand and wrist and to the fingers on his right hand, consistent with defensive injuries.

21The fatal stab wounds to Maxwell had a width ranging between 4.5 to 7 cm, and those to Mr. Holder ranged in width from 4 to 6.5 cm. That appears consistent with the same bladed weapon being used to stab both men.

22After arriving at the scene, the police secured the area, including the family's home. Despite searching the area outside the residence, the police did not find any weapons other than a small and entirely clean paring knife inside the front right pocket of Maxwell's track pants. They found a fanny pack on the porch close to Maxwell's body that contained drug paraphernalia and Mr. Holder's identification.

23During a videotaped statement provided later that same day, Uneek told police that he had been playing video games in his basement bedroom that morning when he heard an altercation upstairs. (He told police that his father has friends over all the time, and they do drugs. Uneek remarked that he "just does not know why those people are in my house.") Uneek said he started heading up the stairs in response to what he heard, but his father threw money down the stairs and told him to stay in the basement. (Police found a quantity of cash strewn about at the top of the landing and on the stairs leading to the basement.)

24Uneek told police that he then heard the other man arguing and calling his mother a "bitch." After that, there were sounds of a physical altercation, and when that noise subsided, he finally came upstairs. Once there, Uneek reported seeing his father lying on the ground outside and his mother on the phone. Uneek denied seeing any weapons. Contrary to his mother's account, he did not mention being outside or becoming involved in the altercation between his father and the other man.

25Later that same day, after obtaining a search warrant, the police searched the family's residence. They found a sizeable military-style collectible knife resting on top of an air duct in the basement. The knife appeared to have blood on its blade. Several feet away, on top of the same air duct, they located a vinyl sheath covered in dust that was the same size and shape as a sheath that would fit that knife.

26Subsequent DNA testing of that knife revealed that the blood on its blade was that of Maxwell and Mr. Holder. Testing of a swab from the knife's handle revealed blood from at least two people, including from one unidentified male, which generated a DNA profile. When it was run through the National DNA Databank, the unidentified profile did not match any known DNA profiles.

27Almost 19 months after the stabbing deaths, on August 31, 2021, a police surveillance team recovered a cup and straw they had observed Uneek drinking from. DNA analysis of these items ultimately generated a DNA profile for Uneek. It could not be excluded as contributing to the DNA profile generated from the swab of the knife's handle. It is estimated to be more than one trillion times more likely that the DNA profile from the knife's handle originates from Uneek and one unknown person than that it originated from two unknown people unrelated to Uneek.

28Beyond Uneek's potential frustration with his father's lifestyle and the people his father brought into the family's home, he had no other apparent motive to harm his father. Uneek's older brother, Kasey Charles, testified on the bail application that Uneek was indifferent to their father's criminal lifestyle and that they had lived with it their entire lives. He testified that although Uneek and his father "butted heads" when his brother was younger, in more recent years, they had a "good relationship." There is no evidence to suggest that there had been any tension or conflict preceding his father's homicide that might have furnished Uneek with a motive to harm him.

29The police only arrested and charged Uneek with the murder of his father and Mr. Holder on May 5, 2022, almost two-and-a-half years after the killings.

II. Uneek's Circumstances

30Uneek is now 24 years old; at the time of the alleged offences, he was only 20. He was born in British Columbia but has lived in Ontario for most of his life. Uneek does not have a criminal record.

31Uneek has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Level 1. Throughout his childhood, he experienced significant difficulties while attending school because of his autism. He struggled academically and was prone to angry and sometimes violent outbursts. Uneek's behaviour at school resulted in suspensions and expulsions, and he had to change schools frequently.

32At the age of 13, Uneek faced a charge of assault with a weapon for slashing another student in the face with a piece of serrated plexiglass. At the time, he reportedly said the other boy deserved it "because he was a racist." There was a further incident involving two other boys when Uneek was 14, resulting in him facing a charge of uttering a threat.

33While at school in March 2016, Uneek drew a brain with a knife in it and the caption "PIP damage." That was an apparent reference to the special education classes and the students in those classes at the school where Uneek was then a student.

34That last incident, combined with his other behaviour, was sufficiently concerning to school officials that they contacted Peel Regional Police, who undertook a threat assessment. In a report dated April 26, 2016, an officer with the force's threat assessment unit concluded that Uneek presented as a "High Risk for a future act of violence towards any individual he comes into interpersonal conflict with; or during occasions of real or perceived slight or insult." However, the author of the assessment noted that it categorized Uneek's risk of committing "any act of violence, regardless of the degree of seriousness."

35There is no suggestion that Uneek committed any other acts of violence while at school beyond those referenced in the report when he was 13 and 14.

36During his testimony on the bail application, Kasey Charles, Uneek's older brother, one of his proposed sureties, acknowledged being aware of the incidents described in the threat assessment report from back when Uneek was 13 and 14. His brother testified that Uneek struggled during his adolescence to fit in at school because of some of his behavioural quirks, which stemmed from his autism. To the extent that he acted out violently during that period, Uneek's brother testified that it was in response to being bullied.

37According to his brother, Uneek stopped having difficulties at school by grade 11. Kasey testified that Uneek excelled in his last two years of high school, won some academic awards, and ultimately graduated. After high school, he attended Sheridan College to upgrade his English and Math grades to allow him to pursue post-secondary studies.

38After his father's death, Uneek moved to Niagara, where he lived with Kasey until April 2021. Following that, he moved in with his mother and younger sister in Dundalk, where he lived when arrested in May 2022.

39Before his arrest, Uneek had applied to the Navy, and his application proceeded to the final interview stage of the recruitment process. The Navy did not ultimately follow up with him after his interview.

40As noted, the police arrested Uneek on May 5, 2022. He has been in custody for nearly 34 months and spent much of that time at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex ("Maplehurst").

41Uneek's trial before a judge and jury is scheduled to commence on November 17, 2025, and last three weeks.

III. The Release Plan

42Uneek proposes his release on bail with his older brother, Kasey Charles, and his maternal grandmother, Maria Pereira, as his sureties.

43The bail plan envisions him living with his grandmother and grandfather from Monday to Friday, residing with his brother on weekends, and being subject to house arrest while at both residences with limited exceptions. Essentially, under the plan, Uneek would not be permitted to leave either surety's residence unless in the company of one of them. A GPS ankle monitor would further enforce the home confinement condition.

44Uneek's older brother, Kasey Charles, is 30 years of age. He does not have a criminal record. Kasey works full-time Monday through Friday as a machine operator and earns between $80,000 and $90,000 annually. He co-owns a house with Uneek and their mother. They have approximately $200,000 to $250,000 of equity in that home. Kasey testified that he is willing to pledge whatever is necessary to secure his brother's release on bail.

45Uneek's maternal grandmother, Maria Pereira, is 74 years old. She does not have a criminal record. Maria and her husband, Uneek's grandfather, live in a house they own. She estimates that they have $600,000 in equity in their home. Maria is a financial advisor for a large insurance company. She works primarily from home and earns $100,000 per year. Maria testified that she is willing to pledge $100,000 to secure Uneek's release on bail and even more if necessary.

46Kasey has a close relationship with Uneek, who lived with him for over a year after their father's death. Since Uneek's arrest, they have maintained regular phone contact. In contrast, Uneek's mother and his grandmother were estranged for many years, only reconnecting shortly before Uneek's arrest. As a result, Maria has only met Uneek in person once. Nevertheless, she is willing to act as a surety for him as part of her ongoing effort to facilitate the reconciliation of her family.

47Kasey and Maria testified at the hearing, and I was equally impressed by them. They are law-abiding, productive and responsible members of the community. They fully understand the role of a surety, and there is no reason to doubt that each would conscientiously fulfill the duties of that role. Although Maria barely knows Uneek, based on my impression of her, that would make her even less inclined to excuse any lapses on his part.

48Notably, Mr. Bernstein acknowledged during submissions that the Crown takes no issue with either of the proposed sureties.

IV. Law and Analysis

49The decision whether to release Uneek on bail requires the court to decide whether he has demonstrated that his detention is unjustified under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds: see Criminal Code, ss. 515(10)(a)-(c); s. 522. This part will address each issue the court must resolve to answer that ultimate question.

Does the Crown have a strong case?

50Before considering each of the legislated criteria as they apply to the circumstances of this case, it is sensible to assess the apparent strength of the Crown's case. That is a relevant consideration when applying each criterion for denying bail. For example, suppose the offence charged is gravely serious, and the Crown's case appears strong. In such circumstances, the accused's release on bail may give rise to both flight and public safety concerns: see Gary T. Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada, 3d ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2010), at §§ 3:3, 3:4, 3:13. Additionally, it is one of the key factors the court must consider in applying the tertiary ground to decide whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice: see Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c)(i).

51On behalf of Uneek, Ms. Vandebeek submitted that the Crown's case against him is not especially strong. She argued that the available evidence gives rise to several potential scenarios, some entirely consistent with Uneek's innocence. For example, it is possible that Uneek merely attempted to break up the violent confrontation between Maxwell and Mr. Holder, who fatally wounded one another. Alternatively, Uneek may have become involved in the confrontation in self-defence or to defend his father, who Mr. Holder was attacking. Finally, Uneek may have intervened after one of the men had fatally wounded the other and inadvertently caused injuries to the other man. In short, Ms. Vandebeek argued that given the sparsity of evidence and the absence of any apparent motive for Uneek to harm either of the deceased men, any of these theories is equally plausible.

52In contrast, on behalf of the Crown, Mr. Bernstein submitted that the totality of the evidence furnishes a powerful inference that Uneek stabbed both victims to death. Mr. Bernstein emphasized Sandra's account; she saw Uneek outside and described him as involved in the altercation. Further, the police found the military-style knife, capable of causing the fatal wounds, with the blood of both victims on its blade and Uneek's DNA on its handle, hidden in the basement, where Uneek had his bedroom and where he was before the altercation. The knife's sheath was found close by and covered in dust. Given that the police secured the house after they arrived on the scene, Uneek must have placed the knife where police found it after the stabbings but before police arrived on the scene. The combination of all that evidence, Mr. Bernstein argued, supports an inference that Uneek perpetrated the stabbings. Nevertheless, Mr. Bernstein conceded a paucity of evidence capable of establishing a motive for Uneek to harm his father.

53The available evidence, considered cumulatively, appears to support a compelling inference that Uneek was the person responsible for stabbing both of the deceased men.

54The notion that Maxwell and Mr. Holder inflicted the stab wounds on one another and that Uneek, for inexplicable reasons, decided to hide the knife they used to do so does not withstand logical scrutiny. Each deceased man sustained significant stab wounds to their torsos, which penetrated their vital organs. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which they each managed to inflict those wounds on one another using the same knife. That would require that one of the men initially wielded the knife and repeatedly stabbed the other and that the second man, despite their mortal wounds, somehow managed to gain control of the knife and then stabbed the other repeatedly. Such a scenario appears to be entirely implausible.

55Instead, the collection of circumstantial evidence points somewhat irresistibly to a single and inescapable conclusion: that Uneek was the person who stabbed the two deceased men. By way of summary, that evidence includes the following.

56First, on Sandra's account, she saw Uneek outside after coming downstairs, and he was involved in the altercation. Although she denied seeing a knife, her comment captured on the 911 recording to "grab the knife" will likely detract from her credibility on that question.

57Second, the police found the military-style knife hidden on top of an air duct in the basement. That knife, which was capable of inflicting the wounds suffered by both deceased, had each man's blood on its blade and Uneek's DNA on its handle.

58Third, Uneek's bedroom was in the basement; on the available evidence, that is where he was when the altercation between Maxwell and Mr. Holder began.

59Fourth, the police also found what appears to have been the knife's sheath covered in dust not far from where they located the knife. That is consistent with whoever wielded the knife retrieving it from the same area before the fatal stabbings.

60Finally, Uneek told the police that after his father threw cash into the basement he did not come downstars before the altercation with Mr. Holder. As a result, remembering that his mother and sister were in their upstairs bedrooms when the altercation began, it is only Uneek who could have retrieved the knife from above the air duct in the basement before the fatal stabbings.

61Accordingly, the Crown appears to have a formidable case that Uneek is the person responsible for stabbing the deceased men and causing their deaths, which would satisfy the actus reus requirements of the charges. Of course, that alone would not prove that Uneek is guilty of second-degree murder for causing the deaths.

62The Crown would also be required to prove the mens rea for murder. To secure a murder conviction, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Uneek either intended to cause the victims' deaths or intended to cause them bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause their deaths, and was reckless whether death ensued or not: see Criminal Code, ss. 229(a)(i), and (ii). No doubt, the Crown will rely on the "common-sense" inference in urging the jury to conclude that Uneek possessed the mens rea required for murder: see Canadian Judicial Council, Model Jury Instructions, Part D Offences, Offence 229(a) Second Degree Murder (online); see also R. v. Seymour, 1996 CanLII 201 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252, at pp. 262-263. A jury would likely conclude that repeatedly stabbing another person with a large knife in the torso is consistent with an intent to kill.

63Nevertheless, considering all the circumstances, including that Uneek had no apparent motive to harm his father, a jury could very much doubt that he meant to do so. An equally plausible explanation for all the evidence is that Uneek retrieved the knife to come to his father's aid, found his father and Mr. Holder fighting outside, attempted to defend his father by stabbing Mr. Holder and, in the confusion and chaos of bodies wrestling on the ground in the dark, stabbed his father by accident or mistake. Yet, even in that scenario, if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Uneek intended to kill Mr. Holder or intended to cause him grievious bodily harm and, in the process, killed his father by accident or mistake, it could still find him guilty of murder for causing the death of his father: see Criminal Code, s. 229(b).

64Of course, even if a jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Uneek caused the deaths of both men and had the requisite mens rea to be guilty of murdering them, that would not necessarily be the end of its analysis. The Crown would also be required to disprove any potential defences for which there was an air of reality, and it would need to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

65The law affords a defence if an accused acted to defend themselves or another person: see Criminal Code, s. 34. However, even if Uneek acted as he did to defend his father, mounting a successful defence on that basis could prove challenging. After all, Mr. Holder did not have a weapon. Therefore, a jury is likely to reject that Uneek’s actions, repeatedly stabbing Mr. Holder in the torso with a large knife and inadvertently stabbing his father in the process, were "reasonable in the circumstances": see Criminal Code, s. 34(1)(c); see also s. 34(2). The viability of such a defence would depend, in large part, on Uneek's potential testimony, which a jury could decide to reject if it concludes he lied to the police. As a result, the viability of a claim of defence of another person appears to be somewhat tenuous.

66In contrast, there is a solid foundation based on the available evidence for Uneek to advance a partial defence of provocation to the charges. When Mr. Holder refused to leave the family's residence when Maxwell directed him to do so, he became a trespasser. Thereafter, Maxwell was justified in using reasonable force to remove him. Mr. Holder's resistance to those efforts constituted an assault, an indictable offence punishable by up to five years of imprisonment, thereby making provocation available: see Criminal Code, ss. 35, 266, 232(2).

67A jury could realistically conclude, or very well have a reasonable doubt, that witnessing an intruder assaulting one's father could deprive "an ordinary person of the power of self-control" and that Uneek acted in response to that provocation "on the sudden and before there was time for [his] passion to cool": Criminal Code, s. 232(2). Provocation appears to find ample support in the available evidence and not be hamstrung by any lies that Uneek may have told the police.

68As a result, the circumstances suggest that there is a viable albeit partial defence of provocation to the charges. If the jury has a reasonable doubt in that regard, Uneek would only be guilty of two counts of manslaughter for causing the deaths of Mr. Holder and his father and not guilty of the charges of second-degree murder he currently faces.

69Of course, it is not a judge's function to adjudicate the charges an accused faces when hearing a bail application. That is the jury's role, which, unlike this court, will have the opportunity to see and hear all the evidence and assess it after a thorough testing at trial. Nevertheless, when deciding whether to grant an accused bail, the court is required to analyze the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, including potential defences suggested by the evidence: see R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, at para. 59. That is because, as noted, it may prove relevant when applying the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

70Having evaluated the apparent strength of the Crown's case, these reasons next consider whether Uneek has demonstrated that his detention is unjustified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Has Uneek justified his release under the primary ground?

71Subsection 515(10)(a) of the Criminal Code provides that the detention of an accused in custody is justified where it is "necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court ... to be dealt with according to law." The parties agree that Uneek has shown it unnecessary for him to remain in custody on that basis. I agree.

72Uneek was born in Canada and has long resided in Ontario, where his mother, brother, and younger sister live. He does not have a criminal record. There is no basis to suggest that Uneek has any inclination to flee the jurisdiction or access to the resources required to do so.

73Under the proposed terms of release, if granted bail, Uneek would be subject to close supervision by two responsible sureties who would pledge substantial sums to secure his release. He would be under house arrest in their respective homes, a condition further enforced through a GPS ankle monitor.

74The circumstances are not such that the strength of the Crown's case and the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence would incentivize Uneek to flee. As explained, there are triable issues in this case, and there is a good chance that Uneek will be found not guilty of the most serious charges he faces.

75In all the circumstances, there is no reasoned basis to conclude that Uneek would fail to attend court if granted bail on the terms he proposes. Accordingly, Uneek has demonstrated that his detention is unnecessary to ensure his attendance in court.

Has Uneek justified his release under the secondary ground?

76Subsection 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code provides that the detention of an accused in custody is justified where it "is necessary for the protection or safety of the public ... having regard to all the circumstances, including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice."

77Under that provision, the "danger or likelihood that an individual will commit a criminal offence does not in itself provide just cause for detention": R. v. Morales, 1992 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, at p. 736. Instead, detention is only warranted where an accused poses 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": Morales, at p. 737. A "substantial likelihood" refers "to a probability of certain conduct, not a mere possibility. And the probability must be substantial, in other words, significantly likely": R. v. Manasseri, 2017 ONCA 226, at para. 87.

78In explaining the secondary ground for detention in Morales, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged the impossibility of making exact predictions about an accused's potential for recidivism and future dangerousness: see Morales, at pp. 738-39. The law, however, does not require clairvoyance. Instead, it demands a reasoned assessment, based on all the available information, of the probable risk the accused poses if released: see Morales, at p. 739.

79Quite often, the accused's criminal record is a critical consideration in assessing the potential risk of their release. For example, if an accused has an established history of committing offences of the kind charged, that could suggest a predisposition to do so again, even while on bail. Similarly, if an accused has a track record of not abiding by court orders, including prior release orders, that may provide a basis for concluding that they are unlikely to comply with their bail conditions if released: see Trotter, at §. 3:11.

80The charge alone cannot justify denying bail. Although individuals accused of murder must justify their release, the law does not place bail beyond their reach: see R. v. LaFramboise (2005), 2005 CanLII 63758 (ON CA), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 32.

81However, the gravity of the charge, coupled with a strong Crown case, can change the calculus. As Justice Trotter has explained, in a decision frequently quoted with approval by judges of this court, when "assessing the risk of future offending, the brutality of the index offence" even though still unproven “is an important fact that should be considered in the determination of whether the public is at risk" as it "would be artificial to gauge the potential risk to the public without looking at the features of the index offence" and while only allegations at the bail hearing that may still be "offset by the strength of the Crown's case:" R. v. R.H., 2006 ONCJ 116, 38 C.R. (6th) 291, at para. 29; see also Trotter, at § 3:13.

82Nevertheless, as Justice Trotter also noted in R.H., at para. 30, the court does not face a stark choice between pre-trial detention and unfettered liberty. The ultimate question is whether the release plan brings any potential risk the accused might otherwise pose if granted bail below the "substantial likelihood" threshold, making pre-trial detention unnecessary to ensure the protection or safety of the public.

83Ms. Vandebeek submitted that Uneek had demonstrated that his detention was unnecessary in the interests of public safety. In so arguing, she emphasized that the case has triable issues and that to the extent the evidence may support an inference that Uneek was the perpetrator, the circumstances were unusual, essentially "a one-off situation." Further, concerning the 2016 risk assessment report, Ms. Vandebeek argued that it deserves virtually no weight. After all, the author noted it was only "valid for the time period in which it [was] prepared," nearly nine years ago, and no psychologist ever met and assessed Uneek at the time. Ms. Vandebeek noted that following his alleged offences, Uneek was free in the community for two and a half years without incident. Finally, Ms. Vandebeek emphasized the release plan's strictness and the sureties' character and judgment. Given all of this, Ms. Vandebeek submitted that Uneek had demonstrated that his detention was unnecessary in the interests of public safety.

84In arguing that Uneek had not justified his release under the secondary ground, Mr. Bernstein emphasized the gravity of the offences charged and that the Crown has a formidable case that Uneek was responsible for the stabbings that caused the deaths. Additionally, Mr. Bernstein emphasized the risk assessment report; while acknowledging it was dated, he noted that Uneek's parents never implemented its recommendations and argued that the concerns it raised persist. Mr. Bernstein submits that there is a real danger that Uneek could act out violently again with potentially devastating consequences should he find himself in a volatile situation. Although Mr. Bernstein did not take issue with the sureties, he submitted that given Uneek's particular challenges and all the circumstances, he poses a real threat to public safety irrespective of the stringency of any release plan.

85After carefully considering all the circumstances, in light of the governing principles, I am satisfied that Uneek has established that his detention is unnecessary to ensure the protection or safety of the public. I have come to that conclusion for several reasons.

86First, there are the circumstances of the offences alleged. While the Crown has a strong case that Uneek was responsible for the stabbings, it appears unlikely that he will be convicted of the murder charges he faces. As explained above, there are significant triable issues in this case. Based on the available evidence, it seems more likely that Uneek will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

87At just 20 years old, Uneek found himself in an unusual and volatile situation when unexpectedly confronted with a violent altercation between his father and a stranger in the family’s home in the wee hours of the morning. In the circumstances, it appears he likely armed himself with a knife to defend his father and acted with little time for reflection when he discovered his father being assaulted by Mr. Holder as the two men wrestled on the ground.

88Based only on Uneek's reaction to the extraordinary circumstances he encountered that morning, I am not prepared to infer that he is predisposed to violence.

89Second, I am also disinclined to draw such an inference based on the risk assessment from 2016. It suggests that Uneek struggled with his temper at school during his adolescence and acted out violently twice when he was 13 and 14. However, his older brother Kasey explained that these incidents resulted from Uneek being bullied at school. These are circumstances that any adolescent would find challenging to navigate, but which would have been especially so for Uneek because of his autism.

90More relevant when assessing Uneek's current risk for violent behaviour is the evidence that by grade 11, he had settled down and excelled at school, winning awards and graduating. Further, after high school, he attended college to upgrade some of his high school grades to allow him to pursue post-secondary education. Notably, there is no suggestion of any violent behaviour on Uneek's part in his later teen years or before the unusual events that are the subject of the charges. In that regard, it is rather significant that Uneek has no criminal record.

91Third, there was a long delay between the alleged offences in late December 2019 and Uneek's arrest in May 2022. During that almost two-and-a-half years, Uneek was free in the community. At least at some points during that period, he was even under police surveillance. Despite this, there is no suggestion that Uneek acted violently on any occasion during that extended timeframe. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that, at that time, he was behaving prosocially, applying to the Navy, and aspiring to serve his country.

92Finally, to the extent that Uneek's actions on the morning of the alleged offences evidence a capacity to act quite violently if confronted by the correct set of circumstances, the court must assess his potential risk bearing in mind the release plan.

93Under it, two responsible sureties will pledge substantial sums and closely supervise Uneek on bail. He will be confined to their respective homes unless in the company of either of them, and compliance with the home confinement condition will be further ensured using a GPS ankle monitor. Given the stringent release plan, any remote risk Uneek might otherwise pose to public safety is reduced well below the "substantial likelihood" threshold.

94Given all this, Uneek has established that his detention in custody is unnecessary to ensure the protection or safety of the public.

Has Uneek justified his release under the tertiary ground?

95Section 515(10)(c) provides that the detention of an accused person in custody is justified if it "is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances." The provision sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors a court must consider in making this determination: see Criminal Code, ss. 515(10)(c)(i)-(iv).

96On behalf of Uneek, Ms. Vandebeek emphasized that there are triable issues in the case that could result in acquittals or manslaughter rather than murder convictions. She noted the unusual circumstances of the alleged offences, which suggests the killings were "the by-product of a one-time situation." Additionally, Ms. Vandebeek pointed out the amount of time Uneek has now spent in pre-trial detention and the reduction in the sentence he would likely receive if found guilty of manslaughter because of the severity of the conditions at Maplehurst more generally and because of the events there in December 2023. She argued that Uneek is effectively in a time-served position if he is found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. Finally, Ms. Vandebeek emphasized the stringency of the release plan. Citing all these considerations, Ms. Vandebeek argued that the tertiary ground does not favour a detention order.

97In contrast, on behalf of the Crown, Mr. Bernstein argued that each of the factors enumerated in subsections 515(10)(c) weigh in favour of ordering detention on the tertiary ground. Mr. Bernstein emphasized the apparent strength of the Crown's case, and the gravity of the crimes alleged, involving the stabbing deaths of two people. Further, he argued that Uneek escalated the confrontation that morning by introducing a knife into the mix and causing the deaths of two people. Additionally, Mr. Bernstein emphasized that Uneek took steps to conceal his role in the crimes by hiding the knife and lying to the police. Finally, he noted that if convicted of the offences charged, Uneek faces a sentence of life imprisonment. For all these reasons, Mr. Bernstein submitted that it would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice if the court granted Uneek bail.

98With the parties' competing positions concerning the tertiary ground summarized, these reasons next consider the relevant factors and apply them to the circumstances of this case.

- The apparent strength of the prosecution's case

99The apparent strength of the prosecution's case is the first of the enumerated factors: see Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c)(i). As already explained, there are triable issues in this case, and it is far from apparent that Uneek will be found guilty of the murder charges he faces. Nevertheless, as noted, the Crown does appear to have a relatively strong case to sustain manslaughter convictions against Uneek. Given this, the apparent strength of the Crown's case favours detention under the tertiary ground.

- The gravity of the offences

100The gravity of the offences charged is also an enumerated factor the court must consider when evaluating whether detention is necessary under the tertiary ground: see Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c)(ii). The court must assess the objective gravity of the offences, bearing in mind the maximum and any minimum sentences for the crimes charged: see St.-Cloud, at para. 60.

101The murder charges Uneek faces are gravely serious; if convicted, he faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. However, as explained, it seems far more probable that he will be found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Of course, manslaughter is also a gravely serious crime; it, too, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although it does not attract a mandatory minimum sentence unless committed with a firearm.

102The gravity of the offences, irrespective of whether Uneek is found guilty of two counts of murder or manslaughter, pulls toward detention under the tertiary ground.

- The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences

103The court must consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences charged, including whether they involved a firearm: see Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c)(iii).

104To be sure, the violent nature of the crimes alleged, two people stabbed to death, is most disturbing. Nevertheless, the surrounding circumstances are rather unusual and far removed from cases involving random and inexplicable violence.

105In short, as already explained, it appears most likely that Uneek overreacted when confronted with an entirely unanticipated, volatile, and violent situation that he had no role in creating. The unusual circumstances of this case do not favour detention under the tertiary ground.

- The potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment on conviction

106The final enumerated consideration is the potential for the accused, if convicted, to be liable to a lengthy term of imprisonment: see Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c)(iv).

107If convicted of the two charges of second-degree murder he currently faces, Uneek will be subject to a mandatory life sentence. But given the available evidence, as explained above, it appears far more probable that Uneek will be found guilty of two counts of manslaughter, not murder.

108In manslaughter cases where an offender and a victim were involved in a fight, and the offender introduced a knife and stabbed and killed the victim, the sentencing range appears to be between five and eight years of imprisonment: see R. v. Corbett, 2015 ONSC 6118, at paras. 23-30 (canvassing the sentencing decisions).

109If found guilty of two counts of manslaughter, although the fact that there were two deaths would tend to push the sentence toward the upper end of the range, mitigating factors, including the unusual circumstances involved, Uneek's youth, his autism, and his lack of a criminal record, would have the opposite effect. In all the circumstances, it seems likely that Uneek would receive a sentence between six and seven years of imprisonment.

110To be sure, a sentence of that duration is a lengthy term of imprisonment, which pulls toward detention under the tertiary ground. However, Uneek has already spent 1034 days in custody. With the usual enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody permitted by section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, that is the equivalent of a sentence of four years and four months of imprisonment. By the time of his scheduled trial in November 2025, it would be the equivalent of almost a five-and-a-half-year sentence.

111Further, Uneek will likely receive some mitigation toward the sentence he would otherwise receive because of his time spent at Maplehurst, given the conditions at that facility, where lockdowns and triple-bunking are endemic: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. D.F., 2024 ONSC 4621, at para. 69(d).

112Additionally, Uneek was held on Unit 8 at Maplehurst during a series of disturbing events that took place there in December 2023. On December 20, 2023, an inmate in Unit 8 assaulted a Correctional Officer. Over the four days that followed, correctional officials responded with various measures directed toward all of the inmates housed in Unit 8, including the deployment of the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT).

113Reportedly, during ICIT's deployment, inmates in Unit 8 were required to remove all their clothing except their underwear, and their hands were zip-tied. All their belongings, as well as their bedding, were removed from their cells. The inmates remained in that almost naked state for an extended period. During that same timeframe, the temperature in the unit dropped markedly, potentially because of the activation of exhaust fans to remediate the odour of munitions used on the unit. Several inmates reported suffering significant injuries because of the force used by correctional officers during these events.

114The events at Maplehurst in December 2023 were the subject of an investigation and report by The Correctional Services Oversight and Investigations Branch, which formed part of the record on Uneek's bail application. The report concluded that correctional staff failed to respect the human rights of the affected inmates.

115In a statement released on December 17, 2024, George Dolhai, the Director of Public Prosecutions, acknowledged that correctional officials may have violated the Charter rights of the affected Maplehurst inmates, entitling them to a remedy.

116More recently, in R. v. Adams, 2024 ONSC 7263, Justice Conlan accepted the Crown's concession that correctional officials violated Mr. Adams' section 8 Charter rights because he was strip searched and held in his underwear for 19 hours during the December 2023 events at Maplehurst. Justice Conlon emphasized the Charter breach when acceding to a comparatively lenient joint submission for some rather serious offences.

117From my experience as one of the Criminal Case Management judges in Brampton, I know that other offenders have received substantial reductions in their sentences because of the breach of their Charter rights occasioned by the events at Maplehurst in December 2023.

118Given all this, Uneek is more than likely already in a "time-served" position for the offences he is most likely to be found guilty of at his trial. That strongly favours a conclusion that Uneek's continued detention in custody is not only unnecessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice but could even serve to undermine it: see St-Cloud, at para. 71, 86-87; R. v. Myers, 2019 SCC 18, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 105, at para. 53.

- The other relevant factors

119Subsection 515(10)(c) requires a qualitative rather than a quantitative assessment in deciding whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. The provision involves much more than applying a checklist: see St-Cloud at paras. 66-69, 87. A judge must consider the four factors "together with any other relevant factors" to determine "whether, in the case before him or her, detention is necessary" to "achieve the purpose of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice": St-Cloud, at paras. 69, 87.

120Beyond the factors enumerated in subsection 515(10)(c), three others deserve consideration in deciding whether Uneek has demonstrated that his detention is unnecessary under the tertiary ground.

121First, it is undoubtedly relevant when applying the tertiary ground that Uneek was only 20 years old at the time of his alleged offences, is Autistic, and does not have a criminal record: see St-Cloud, at para. 71. Similarly, it is surely also relevant that after the stabbing deaths, Uneek remained in the community for two-and-a-half years without incident and behaved prosocially during that period.

122Second, the court's assessment of whether an accused's release on bail would undermine confidence in the administration of justice must also consider their release plan, given that the court does not face a binary choice between detention or release but may order release subject to conditions: see R. v. Dang, 2015 ONSC 4254, 21 C.R. (7th) 85, at para. 58; R. v. Silva-Stone, 2022 ONCA 222, at paras. 62-63. Although reasonable members of the community might understandably be concerned by the release of someone charged with serious and violent crimes, knowing that they will be supervised closely by two responsible sureties who have pledged substantial sums, be subject to house arrest and wear a GPS monitor, may go some distance toward helping assuage such concerns.

123Lastly, Uneek is Black. As such, he belongs to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and disadvantaged in obtaining bail. Section 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code requires the court to "give particular attention to" the circumstances of such accused when deciding whether to grant bail. Such concerns are undoubtedly relevant when assessing whether maintaining confidence in the administration of justice would be best served by detaining Uneek: see R. v. Robinson, 2023 ONSC 1927, at para. 39.

- Applying the tertiary ground in light of all the circumstances

124Having catalogued all the relevant circumstances, I turn to the ultimate assessment required under the tertiary ground.

125In deciding whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, the concern is with public confidence: see R. v. Hall, 2002 SCC 64, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309, at para. 41; St-Cloud, at para. 72. The measure is the perception of "reasonable members of the community": St-Cloud, at para. 74. These are people who are dispassionate, thoughtful, well-informed, and familiar with the basics of the rule of law, the fundamental values of our criminal law, and the rights guaranteed by the Charter, including the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail, and the right to have a trial within a reasonable time: see St-Cloud, at paras. 72-87.

126Would such people lose confidence in the administration of justice if the court granted Uneek bail subject to the terms he proposes? In answering that question, a brief recap of all the circumstances is helpful; they include:

• Uneek was only 20 years old at the time of the alleged offences and has no criminal record. He is Autistic.

• Although charged with two counts of second-degree murder, the evidence suggests Uneek will most likely be convicted of two counts of manslaughter, not murder, because he has a viable partial defence of provocation available to him.

• While it appears Uneek stabbed both victims to death, the circumstances were highly unusual. He responded to an unexpected confrontation between his father and a stranger in the family's home in the wee hours of the morning. Most likely, he armed himself with a knife to defend his father and acted with little time for reflection when he discovered his father being assaulted by the stranger as the two men wrestled on the ground. While Uneek stabbed and killed his father and the other man, it seems most likely that the killing of his father was accidental.

• If Uneek is found guilty of two counts of manslaughter, he would likely receive a sentence of six to seven years of imprisonment. However, he has effectively already served the sentence he would receive if convicted after trial because of his time spent in detention and the conditions of that detention, and a sentence reduction he is very likely to receive because of the violation of his Charter rights while held at Maplehurst.

• After the stabbing deaths, Uneek was in the community for two-and-a-half years without incident and behaved prosocially during that period.

• On bail, Uneek will be under a stringent plan of release, supervised by two responsible sureties who will pledge substantial sums to secure his release. He will be required to remain in their respective homes unless in the company of one of them. A GPS ankle monitor will further police the home confinement condition.

• Uneek is Black; as such, he is a member of a group overrepresented in the criminal justice system and historically disadvantaged in obtaining bail. Parliament has directed judges to consider that when deciding whether to grant bail.

127In the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, especially because Uneek has very likely already served the sentence he would receive for the offences he is most likely to be convicted of after trial, reasonable members of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if the court did not order his release on bail: see St-Cloud, at para. 86-87.

Conclusion

128Uneek has demonstrated that his detention is unjustified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code. A release order shall be issued, with each of Uneek's proposed sureties required to pledge $100,000 without deposit and subject to the other terms he proposes.

Signed: “Justice J. Stribopoulos”