Canada Case Law

R. v. Johnson

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances sufficient to overcome the public interest in continued detention: although charges were reduced to possession, a substantial risk of reoffending remains given his criminal history and breaches while previously released, and his release plan and sureties do not adequately mitigate that risk; therefore detention is necessary to protect public safety and maintain public confidence and the application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Judicial interim release
• Section 679(3) criminal code
• Public safety
• Public confidence in the administration of justice
• Material change in circumstances
• Breach of release conditions

Read case analysis

R. v. S.H.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Release Order made under s.679(5) was invalid because s.679(5) applies only to persons released pending the hearing of an appeal; once the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered, release must be governed by s.679(7.1). Because the Release Order was issued under the wrong statutory provision it is a nullity for purposes of this revocation application. The Court declines to conduct a de novo s.679(7.1) hearing and remits the matter to the Superior Court of Justice for a first instance Crown onus hearing under s.679(7.1); accordingly the Crown's application to revoke the Release Order is…

Source excerpt

• Release pending appeal
• Release pending trial after successful appeal
• Section 679(5)
• Section 679(7.1)
• Revocation of release order
• Concurrent jurisdiction

Read case analysis

R. v. B.P.

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The application for judicial interim release was allowed because the appellant met the s.679(3) criteria: at least one ground raising a non-frivolous question of law (the s.11(b) delay issue), the appellant demonstrated he will surrender and provided a release plan with surety and promise, and detention was not necessary in the public interest given low public safety risk, measures to mitigate flight risk, and the need to preserve meaningful reviewability of the convictions.

Source excerpt

• Conviction appeal
• Section 11(b) delay
• Judicial interim release criteria
• Public interest balancing
• Trial judge credibility and interruptions

Read case analysis

R. v. Hayer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court clarified that Mr. Hayer’s dangerous driving breached his bail condition and engaged s. 770, requiring endorsement of the release order with a Form 33 certificate.

• Bail cancellation
• Certificate of default (s.770)
• Breach of bail condition
• Dangerous operation (s.320.13)
• Bail-cancellation
• Certificate-of-default

Read case analysis

R. v. Mauger

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal sentence on the s.72(1) forcible entry conviction was granted but the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the sentence appeal had sufficient merit that continued detention would cause unnecessary hardship and failed to show detention was not necessary in the public interest; accordingly the motion for release pending appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Judicial interim release pending appeal
• Criminal code s.679
• Leave to appeal sentence
• Public interest balancing
• Enforceability vs reviewability
• S.267(a) assault with a weapon

Read case analysis

R. v. Short

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The application was granted because, on balance, the new legal issue arising from Cunningham regarding counsel withdrawal, the substantial fresh evidence suggesting a viable third party suspect, the applicant's four years of pre-appeal incarceration with no prior record, an unassailable release plan, and the ability to schedule and hear the appeal imminently collectively demonstrate that the interests of reviewability outweigh enforcement under s.679(3)'s public interest criterion.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Judicial interim release
• Fresh evidence
• Third party suspect
• Counsel withdrawal
• Solicitor-client privilege

Read case analysis

R. v. Prosser

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court granted judicial interim release because the applicant met the statutory criteria: his leave application was not frivolous given an arguable conflict with R. v. Le on warrant sufficiency, he undertook to surrender, and detention was not necessary in the public interest taking into account the merits of the leave application and imminent parole eligibility; the second ground (special advocates) was insufficient to justify release on its own.

Source excerpt

• Judicial interim release
• Search warrant sufficiency
• Informant evidence
• Special advocates
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Doncaster

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The application under s.520 was dismissed because the Court lacked jurisdiction: the challenged provincial orders had been vacated or superseded and s.520 requires a review be sought before the trial of the charge and presumes an existing order; certiorari was refused because no live orders remained to quash, the remedy would be inappropriate and the application was moot, so relief was properly denied in the exercise of discretion.

Source excerpt

• Section 520 review
• Certiorari
• Mootness
• Jurisdiction
• Conditions of release
• Overbreadth/delegation

Read case analysis

R. v. Dow

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Appellant met the s.679(3) prerequisites on a balance of probabilities: the appeal was not frivolous, he provided credible undertakings and sureties that satisfied the court he would surrender, and his continued detention was not necessary in the public interest; accordingly judicial interim release was granted and the proposed form of order and ancillary documents were approved.

Source excerpt

• Judicial interim release under s.679
• Appeal against conviction and sentence
• Credibility and identification issues
• Publication restriction s.486

Read case analysis

R. v. Van Dyke

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Application for judicial interim release under s. 679 of the Criminal Code was dismissed after the Court found detention remained necessary in the public interest.

• Judicial interim release
• Appeal from conviction
• Public interest
• Vetrovec warning
• Jury charge
• Firearm offences

Read case analysis