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.
The Provincial Court has jurisdiction under Criminal Code s.518(2) to order release pending sentence where the accused has pleaded guilty and the plea has been accepted even if the plea was entered in superior court; s.523(1)(b) does not apply because there was no prior release order to continue or revoke.
Source excerpt
The court cancelled the prior release order under s.524(3) because the new charges provided reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an indictable offence, but nonetheless granted release pending appeal under s.679(3) because the increased public safety concerns could be adequately managed by stringent conditions (changed residence, additional $5,000 deposit, $1,000 surety promise, curfew, and no-contact order), and the balance of the statutory criteria favoured release to permit appellate review.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal granted bail pending appeal to Sheldon McFarlane, finding his self-defence jury-instruction ground clearly surpassed the not frivolous threshold.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted judicial interim release pending appeal after finding Nabi’s ineffective-assistance appeal was not frivolous and detention was unnecessary.
The presiding justice denied the Crown's s.516(1) adjournment because the Crown had no good‑faith, bail‑related reason to adjourn: the police/Crown had six months to prepare, provided insufficient material at first appearance, and there was no reasonable prospect that witnesses would need to be called at a bail hearing for a six‑month‑old $40 liquor theft. Police conduct frustrated s.503 judicial oversight and the attending Crown representative was unprepared and unbriefed; accordingly continued detention was not justified and the accused was released on an undertaking to attend court.
Source excerpt
The court denied bail pending sentencing, finding the accused’s prior failure to appear, avoidance of arrest, and history of dishonesty meant proposed release conditions did not adequately manage attendance risk.
The IAC ground surpasses the minimal non‑frivolous threshold, but the applicant's detention was necessary in the public interest: given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's lengthy record of breaches and violence, the risk to the complainant and public safety, and the limited utility of monitoring measures, bail pending appeal was refused.
Source excerpt
Bail review dismissed after the court found the accused remained a serious public-safety risk and that proposed conditions would not adequately protect the public.
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
Explore more
