Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - SCJ

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling-house contrary to s. 349 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved the accused forcing her way into the home of an elderly couple, demanding keys, and physically assaulting both victims, causing injuries requiring hospitalization.

The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence order followed by probation and restitution.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, emphasizing the accused's first-time offender status, guilty plea, remorse, and employment in the educational system.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months of probation, 100 hours of community service, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a non-contact order, and restitution of $90.00.

The Crown applied to revoke A.H.'s bail post-conviction for criminal harassment and attempted abduction, pending sentencing and a potential dangerous/long-term offender application.

The Crown argued for revocation on secondary (public safety) and tertiary (public confidence) grounds, citing an outdated threat assessment and the gravity of the offences.

The defence contended the threat assessment was stale and that revoking bail would impede A.H.'s ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding no new facts to justify revocation, noting A.H.'s consistent compliance with strict bail conditions for over two years, and reiterating that post-conviction bail revocation is an exception, not the rule.

The applicant, Landyn Delaney, sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The original Justice of the Peace had found detention justified on tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court found no error of law in the Justice of the Peace's application of the tertiary ground test but identified a material change in circumstances based on new evidence, including a more stringent release plan with two sureties (father and brother) and electronic monitoring.

The court concluded that, with the new plan, a reasonable member of the public would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released, considering his lack of prior record, youth, and the principle of restraint.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was released on strict conditions.

The applicant, Dylan Schaap, charged with second-degree murder and firearms offences, sought release on bail.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court reviewed the proposed release plan, including multiple sureties and electronic monitoring, and assessed the applicant's past conduct, the seriousness of the charges, and the strength of the Crown's case.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the onus to justify release on both secondary (public safety/recidivism/interference with justice) and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) grounds, citing concerns about the reliability of the sureties and the applicant's history of non-compliance and dishonesty.

The application for release was dismissed.

This decision concerns a bail application by Isaah Picody-Naveau, who is charged with second-degree murder and other criminal code offences, including domestic violence.

The applicant sought bail under sections 515 and 522 of the Criminal Code, while the Crown applied under section 524(8) to cancel his prior release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention.

Despite the applicant's history of breaching release orders and violent temper, the court granted bail.

Key factors influencing the decision included the significant time spent in custody (over 315 days), a compelling Gladue report highlighting intergenerational trauma and a difficult upbringing, a strong proposed release plan relying on family sureties and GPS monitoring, and the perceived weakness of the Crown's second-degree murder case, particularly regarding the mens rea element.

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail as articulated in R. v. Antic.

The Crown sought a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the respondent on bail following serious charges including failing to comply with a recognizance, discharge of a firearm, uttering a threat to damage property, and break and enter of a residence.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law and principle by failing to adequately analyze the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, and by allowing the COVID-19 pandemic to disproportionately influence the decision without a robust supervision plan.

The court concluded that the proposed supervision plan was inadequate given the seriousness of the allegations and the respondent's criminal record.

The respondent's bail was vacated, and she was ordered detained.

The applicant, Jehroomien Rajendram, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his detention by a Justice of the Peace on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He argued legal errors in the initial detention and, alternatively, a material change in circumstances due to a new supervision plan and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no legal error in the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the sureties or the supervision plan.

Regarding the material change, the court acknowledged the new sureties and enhanced electronic monitoring but found them insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of reoffending, given the serious allegations (discharging a firearm, breaching prior orders, threatening text messages) and the applicant's criminal record.

While acknowledging the enhanced risk of COVID-19 in prisons, the court concluded it did not tip the scale in favor of release, especially as the applicant had no pre-existing medical conditions and there was no significant outbreak at the correctional facility.

The application for bail review was denied.

The applicant sought a s.520 review of a detention order made on secondary grounds.

The court found several material changes in circumstances since the original show cause hearing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a new release plan involving residence with his daughter, and the withdrawal of one of the charges.

The court also expressed reservations about the adequacy of the reasons for the initial detention order.

Applying principles favouring release, the court granted the bail review and ordered the applicant's release on specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially given potential trial delays due to the pandemic.

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The applicant, S.B.S., convicted of drug offenses and serving a sentence, sought a bail review of his continued detention on new charges including human trafficking, breach of recognizance, and drug trafficking.

He proposed a stringent release plan with three sureties and electronic monitoring, citing his nearing parole eligibility and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown opposed, arguing an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The court found that the applicant had not met his onus to establish that continued detention was not justified on the secondary ground, citing the egregious nature of the new allegations, his prior flagrant breach of recognizance, and the inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The accused, M.J.I., sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the initial detention order was inappropriate, the proposed release plan was strengthened, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error in the initial detention and deemed the revised release plan insufficient on its own.

However, considering the accused's serious injuries, restricted mobility, asthma, and increased vulnerability to COVID-19 in custody, the court determined that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

M.J.I. was ordered released on house arrest with three sureties and electronic monitoring, subject to specific conditions.

The accused, Kenny Seegobinsingh, applied for a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing.

The application was based on two material changes in circumstances: new proposed sureties and the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both constituted material changes, allowing for a de novo bail hearing.

Considering the new sureties' credible evidence and the amplified risks of COVID-19 in institutional settings, the court determined that the proposed strict house arrest plan would sufficiently reduce the risk of re-offending and would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite the serious nature of the break and enter charges.

T.L. brought a bail review application after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds following a shooting incident.

The initial bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace was flawed due to a misapprehension of evidence regarding a proposed surety.

The Superior Court conducted a *de novo* hearing, considering a new supervision plan involving house arrest with grandparents as sureties, electronic monitoring, and the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the accused satisfied the onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds, emphasizing the strength of the supervision plan and the elevated risks of detention during the pandemic.

T.L. was released on strict conditions.

Sarai Lopez Iglesias, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown opposed, citing the strength of the case, the gravity of the offence, and concerns on primary and secondary grounds.

The applicant proposed a robust bail plan including house arrest with sureties (her mother and step-father), electronic monitoring, and a substantial pledge.

The court, while acknowledging the strong Crown case and serious nature of the charge, found that the proposed plan, particularly the full-time supervision by the mother, was sufficient to address the concerns on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and granted bail.

Mr. Shultz applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code for a review of a detention order.

The original detention was based on the secondary ground (public safety) due to a lengthy criminal record with violent offences.

A new release plan was proposed with a childhood friend as surety.

The court found the new plan inadequate, citing the proposed surety's lack of awareness of the accused's record and the unreliability of a third party involved in the employment plan.

The court also found detention necessary on the tertiary ground (public confidence in justice administration) due to the gravity of the offences (aggravated assault, attempted drowning) and the Crown's intention to seek a dangerous offender designation, which could lead to indefinite imprisonment.

The application for review was dismissed.

The accused, Dwayne Nelson, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging the denial of bail by a Justice of the Peace.

The application focused on whether there had been a material change in circumstances since the original bail hearing.

The court considered the withdrawal of certain drug charges by the federal Crown and the development of a new release plan with new sureties and more onerous conditions.

Applying the principles from R. v. St-Cloud and R. v. Antic, the court found that the proposed new sureties, combined with the tightened plan, constituted a material change in circumstances that addressed the original concerns regarding secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The bail review application was allowed, and the accused was released on a recognizance with specific conditions.

This decision concerns a bail recognizance estreatment hearing following the accused's breach of a house arrest condition.

The accused, Mark Meulendyks, breached his $50,000 recognizance, for which his father, John Meulendyks, acted as sole surety.

The Crown sought forfeiture of the full amount.

The court found the accused solely at fault for the breach but declined to order forfeiture against him due to undue hardship and inability to pay.

Despite the surety's diligence in monitoring the accused, the court ordered the surety to forfeit $25,000, emphasizing the importance of the moral pressure exerted by the recognizance and the surety's role as an assurance of compliance.

Michael Duru, charged with attempt murder and endangering life, sought a new bail hearing after his previous bail was cancelled due to breaches.

The Crown opposed, citing prior breaches including a robbery conviction and a curfew breach.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

The judge found the robbery to be an unusual circumstance not indicative of a substantial risk of re-offence posing a public danger, and the curfew breach, while serious, did not warrant detention given Duru's lengthy compliance periods.

On tertiary grounds, the court found the Crown's case not to be overwhelming, thus not diminishing confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with varied conditions, including new sureties (mother and father) and an adjusted curfew to allow for night employment.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the defendant, Christopher John Clymer.

The defendant faced serious charges including two counts of aggravated assault and had a criminal record with violent offences.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by failing to adequately analyze the secondary grounds and by not considering the tertiary grounds for detention, as required by R. v. St. Cloud.

The court vacated the original bail order and ordered the defendant's detention, finding that both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, particularly given the serious nature of the alleged offences, the defendant's violent criminal history, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant, Omar McLeod, sought judicial interim release by applying to vacate a prior detention order, claiming a material change in circumstances.

The Crown conceded a material change but argued it did not favor release, opposing bail on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court, applying the criteria for material change from *R. v. St. Cloud*, acknowledged that the proposed 24-hour surety supervision by the applicant's mother constituted a favorable change.

However, the court found that the additional 16 charges laid against the applicant since the initial bail hearing, revealing a pattern of aggressive, predatory, and stalking conduct against multiple complainants, also constituted a material change that significantly increased the risk to public safety and undermined confidence in the administration of justice.

The court dismissed the application, maintaining the detention order on both secondary and tertiary grounds.