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

The court concluded there was no prospect of success on a bail review hearing and therefore dismissed the application for directions under s.680; absence of a realistic prospect of success justified refusal to order review or grant bail pending appeal.

Court disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for directions under s.680 dismissed
  • No direction granted to review the orders dated 18 July 2006 (Lowry J.) and 16 August 2006 (Hall J.)

02

Material facts

Parties

Regina

Respondent Counsel: F.G. Tischler

Neil Vernon Adams

Appellant Counsel: In Person

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Length: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Bail Review / Application for Directions Under S.680 Criminal Code

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought a direction under s.680 that two orders dismissing his bail applications be reviewed by a Division of this Court and effectively sought bail pending appeal after conviction and sentence.
Respondent
Respondent opposed the application, submitting there was no prospect of success on a bail review hearing and therefore no basis to grant the requested direction or bail.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Code, R.S.C., s.680

    Section 680 provides for review by a Court of Appeal division of orders affecting bail

  2. 02

    Appellate jurisprudence / common law principle

    Bail pending appeal requires a sufficient prospect of success on appeal to justify release

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court concluded there was no prospect of success on a bail review hearing and therefore dismissed the application for directions under s.680; absence of a realistic prospect of success justified refusal to order review or grant bail pending appeal.

Court disposition

Application dismissed

  • Application for directions under s.680 dismissed
  • No direction granted to review the orders dated 18 July 2006 (Lowry J.) and 16 August 2006 (Hall J.)

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 4 December 2006

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· 4 December 2006

2006 BCCA 541

2006 BCCA 541 R. v. Adams

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Adams, 2006 BCCA 541 Date: 20061204 Docket: CA33925 Between: Regina Respondent And Neil Vernon Adams Appellant BAIL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 680 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Finch (In Chambers) In Person The Appellant F.G. Tischler Counsel for the Respondent Date of the Appellant's Written Submission: Date of the Respondent's Written Submission: 26 September 2006 6 October 2006 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia 4 December 2006 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Finch: [1] Mr. Adams applies under Section 680 of the Criminal Code for a direction that the Order of Mr. Justice Lowry made on 18 July 2006, and the Order of Mr. Justice Hall made 16 August 2006, both dismissing his applications for bail pending appeals from conviction and sentence, be reviewed by a Division of this Court. [2] Mr. Adams was convicted on 27 January 2006 of dangerous driving causing death, and sentenced on 17 March 2006 to 18 months in custody. [3] I have read and considered all of the material submitted on this application for directions. In my opinion there is no prospect of success on a bail review hearing. [4] The application for directions is dismissed. "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, R.S.C., s.680

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.