Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a review of an extradition detention order, upheld the flight-risk analysis, and refused fresh evidence of arthritis.
Detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code. The court held the accused’s continued pre-trial detention was justified under the secondary ground.
On a s. 520 bail review, the court found the cash deposit had been set without adequate inquiry into ability to pay and reduced it from $2,500 to $350.
Section 525 hearings are de novo assessments focused primarily on whether continued detention is justified under s.515(10); the accused seeking release bears the onus to satisfy the court of changed circumstances or inadequacy of original grounds for detention; on the facts the proposed sureties and release plan were inadequate, there was no persuasive new evidence (the alibi lacked weight) and trial was imminent, therefore continued detention was justified and release was properly denied.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the s.680 application, holding that the application judge erred by not considering s.31 YCJA before ordering detention under the tertiary ground and that the preliminary inquiry materially weakened the Crown's identification evidence; accordingly the applicant must be released into the care of a responsible person pursuant to s.31 subject to strict undertakings, a $50,000 recognizance and specified conditions to preserve public confidence and ensure attendance.
Source excerpt
The court denied continuation of bail because the alleged April impaired driving and breach of bail constituted serious conduct that, given the accused's history of driving suspensions and prior breaches, demonstrated a real risk to public safety that could not be adequately mitigated by additional bail conditions; therefore detention was necessary in the public interest pending the appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
