R. v. Garnier

R. v. Garnier

Crown did not prove on a balance of probabilities that Garnier knowingly and voluntarily contravened the substantive conditions of his recognizance; the mere laying of s.145(3) informations is not determinative under s.524(4)(b) and where the alleged indictable offence is essentially a breach of recognizance the court must apply s.524(4)(a); accordingly the recognizance was not revoked and the accused was released on existing bail conditions.

Citation
2017 NSSC 102
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Christopher Garnier; Surety: Vince Garnier; Surety: Angela Garnier; Surety: Kim Edmunds
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Revocation / Stage One (cancellation Stage)
Outcome
Recognizance not revoked; accused released and recognizance reinstated
Legal Topics
Bail Revocation, Breach of Recognizance, S.524 Criminal Code, S.145(3) Criminal Code, Standard of Proof, Mens Rea for Breach, Compliance Checks, Lawful Excuse
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail / Pre Trial Release Evidence Charter Rights Bail Revocation Breach of Recognizance S.524 Criminal Code S.145(3) Criminal Code +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Christopher Garnier

Accused

Vince Garnier

Surety

Angela Garnier

Surety

Kim Edmunds

Surety

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail Revocation / Stage One (cancellation Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused contravened his recognizance conditions
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an indictable offence after the recognizance
  3. 3 Which statutory threshold and standard of proof applies under s.524(4)(a) and (b)

Ratio Decidendi

Crown did not prove on a balance of probabilities that Garnier knowingly and voluntarily contravened the substantive conditions of his recognizance; the mere laying of s.145(3) informations is not determinative under s.524(4)(b) and where the alleged indictable offence is essentially a breach of recognizance the court must apply s.524(4)(a); accordingly the recognizance was not revoked and the accused was released on existing bail conditions.

Court Disposition

Recognizance not revoked; accused released and recognizance reinstated

Orders

  • Immediate release on charges in Supreme Court on existing bail conditions dated December 20, 2016
  • Recognizance declared operative as it was immediately prior to arrest