Bail pending appeal was granted after the court found the conviction appeal was not frivolous and that sparse trial reasons reduced the public-interest case for detention.
The application for interim release was dismissed because, although the appeal and leave application are not frivolous and the appellant will surrender, detention pending appeal is necessary in the public interest: the enforceability interest outweighs reviewability given the seriousness of large‑scale cocaine trafficking, the appellant's history of breaching court orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition, recent evasion of police, and an unacceptable release plan (unsuitable sureties who resided at premises implicated in the offences). The trial judge's admission of evidence under Gr…
Denial of interim release because, although the Crown consented and the applicant will surrender, the public interest criterion was not met: the offences involved a drive-by shooting targeting civilians, the sentencing ground was weak and unlikely to succeed, and release would undermine public confidence and safety; therefore detention pending appeal was necessary.
Applicant satisfied s.679(3): the leave application is not frivolous because it raises an arguable legal question about the interaction of ss.650 and 650.01; the applicant will surrender and poses no unmanageable safety risk; balancing enforceability and reviewability favoured release because enforceability concerns were mitigated by certainty of return to custody if unsuccessful and by strong procedural safeguards (surety and release plan); accordingly judicial interim release was ordered on proposed terms.
Source excerpt
Presence of accused at trial (s.650 and s.650.01 criminal code)
Leave to appeal sentence is granted because the proposed appeal is not frivolous; release pending appeal is denied because the applicant failed to show detention is not necessary in the public interest — the proposed release plan did not adequately mitigate risk of reoffending and the proposed surety was unsuitable given recent conduct, outweighing concerns about potential hardship and mootness.
Applicant satisfied Oland criteria: appeal not frivolous, no flight risk, no public safety concerns; strong release plan and credible sureties; substantial custody already served and parole delays meant reviewability outweighed enforceability, therefore release pending appeal under s.679(1) was justified.
The court found the victim's present expressed consent and related evidence satisfied the Palmer test as a material and relevant change in circumstances; applying St-Cloud/Antic/Zora principles the court concluded that narrowly tailored amended conditions (express consent to communicate and contact, and presence of an agreed third person) are necessary, reasonable, sufficiently linked to statutory risks and are the fewest and least onerous conditions required; accordingly the original Release Order was vacated and a new Release Order with amended contact conditions was made.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal sentence and ordered judicial interim release pending appeal for a contempt appellant on strict conditions.
The application for interim judicial release was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that detention was not necessary in the public interest under s.679(3)(c): her grounds of appeal do not clearly surpass the minimal threshold, the seriousness and egregiousness of first degree murder and attendant public safety concerns and an inadequate release plan outweigh the public interest in reviewability, and COVID-19 evidence did not show a serious or immediate risk warranting release.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed an application to review interim release conditions, holding that s. 680(1) did not apply and jurisdiction was lacking.