Susan K. Stothart

The Crown brought an application for bail review after the accused’s original surety withdrew and the justice of the peace permitted substitution of a new surety without vacating the recognizance.

The Crown argued that once the accused was rendered into custody by a surety under s. 766 of the Criminal Code and committed to prison, the recognizance was vacated and a new bail hearing was required under s. 769.

The court agreed with the reasoning in recent jurisprudence rejecting the view that simple substitution of a surety is available after committal.

The court held that once an accused is rendered and committed to custody, a new judicial interim release hearing must occur and the substitution procedure in s. 767.1 is unavailable.

The court further held that the Crown is entitled to notice and the opportunity to make submissions on applications involving substitution or assessment of sureties.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring a justice of the peace to receive a private information alleging that a police officer committed indictable offences.

The justice of the peace had refused to receive the information after determining there were no reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed.

The Superior Court held that receiving an information is a ministerial act where the information is facially compliant with s. 504 of the Criminal Code.

Because the complaint alleged indictable offences, asserted reasonable and probable grounds, and indicated territorial jurisdiction, the justice of the peace was obliged to receive and swear the information.

The matter was ordered remitted so the information could proceed to the pre‑enquête stage to determine whether process should issue.