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 held it could remand the accused after conviction under s. 523(1)(b)(ii) and ordered detention pending sentence because of flight risk and public confidence.
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.
Source excerpt
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed because the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence and improperly relied on the complainant's interpretation of a video, which formed an essential part of the judge's reasoning and resulted in a miscarriage of justice; accordingly a new trial was ordered and the sentence was vacated.
Source excerpt
Detention was not necessary under s.515(10)(b) or (c); the Crown failed to show the public could not be protected or that confidence in the administration of justice required detention given the applicant’s prior compliance with release terms, the lack of charges arising from the altercation, the ability to impose restrictive conditions (including prohibition on possessing images of persons under 18), the appellate findings that undermined the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, and the exceptional COVID-19 constraints on in‑person supervision, therefore interim release on the draft…
Source excerpt
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.
The Supreme Court clarified bail pending appeal under s. 679(3)(c), holding that public interest requires balancing enforceability and reviewability, and that Oland’s detention was unwarranted.
Motion dismissed because appellant failed to satisfy the public interest limb of s.679(3): his extensive and recent criminal record, numerous breaches of recognizance and withdrawn sureties, unstable living and employment plans, and an unsuitable surety created a significant risk of re-offending and undermined public confidence in the administration of justice despite the appeal not being frivolous.
Source excerpt
The judge concluded the statutory prerequisites were met: the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant would surrender, and the public interest did not require continued detention because strict, enforceable conditions (recognizance of $5,000 with surety, pledge of property and house‑arrest style conditions) sufficiently mitigated the risk; accordingly interim release was granted subject to those conditions.
Source excerpt
Release denied because appellant failed to prove he would surrender into custody and failed to show detention was unnecessary in the public interest: he offered no acceptable surety or concrete release plan and his extensive record of convictions and repeated recognizance breaches established a real risk he would not honor interim release.
Source excerpt
A British Columbia Court of Appeal justice dismissed Acram Adam’s applications for court-appointed counsel in his extradition appeal and judicial review, and adjourned his interim release application.
Explore more
