Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

R. v. Adams

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applying the low threshold test for a direction under s. 680(1), the Chief Justice concluded that a Division of the Court could conclude the appeal should be allowed and therefore directed that the Supreme Court order terminating bail be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

Court disposition

Direction granted to review the Supreme Court order terminating the appellant's bail; matter directed to a Division of the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Order that the British Columbia Supreme Court order pronounced 26 September 2005 terminating the appellant's release on bail pending trial be reviewed by the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code

02

Material facts

Parties

Neil Vernon Adams

Appellant Counsel: J.O. Richardson

Regina

Respondent Counsel: E. Z. Poll

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Bail Review / Application Under S. 680(1) Criminal Code for Direction to Review Supreme Court Order Terminating Bail Pending Trial

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought a direction under s. 680(1) that the Supreme Court order of 26 September 2005 terminating his release on bail be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, arguing that a Division could conclude the appeal should be allowed.
Respondent
Respondent opposed review, maintaining the termination of bail was properly ordered and there was no basis for a direction to review by the Court of Appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Code s. 680(1) and appellate jurisprudence

    Low threshold test for granting a direction under s. 680(1)

  2. 02

    This Court's application of the standard in R. v. Adams, 2005 BCCA 580

    Direction appropriate where a Division could conclude the appeal should be allowed

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applying the low threshold test for a direction under s. 680(1), the Chief Justice concluded that a Division of the Court could conclude the appeal should be allowed and therefore directed that the Supreme Court order terminating bail be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

Court disposition

Direction granted to review the Supreme Court order terminating the appellant's bail; matter directed to a Division of the Court of Appeal.

  • Order that the British Columbia Supreme Court order pronounced 26 September 2005 terminating the appellant's release on bail pending trial be reviewed by the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 25 November 2005

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 25 November 2005

2005 BCCA 580

2005 BCCA 580 R. v. Adams

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Adams, 2005 BCCA 580 Date: 20051125 Docket: CA33518 Between: Regina Respondent And Neil Vernon Adams Appellant

BAIL HEARING UNDER SECTION 680(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Finch (In Chambers) J.O. Richardson Counsel for the Appellant E. Z. Poll Counsel for the Respondent Written Submissions Received: November 17, 2005 and November 23, 2005 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia November 25, 2005 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Finch: [1] Mr. Adams applies under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code for a direction that the order of the British Columbia Supreme Court pronounced 26 September 2005 terminating his release on bail pending trial, be reviewed by this Court. [2] I have read and considered the written submissions of counsel, and the transcript of the bail review proceedings. [3] Applying the low threshold test for a direction under s. 680(1), I have come to the view that a Division of the Court, applying the law, could conclude that the appeal should be allowed. [4] Accordingly, I direct that the order be reviewed by this Court. "The Honourable Chief Justice Finch"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Code, s. 680(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.