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
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 Court of Appeal for Ontario denied bail pending appeal in a child sexual interference case, finding the proposed appeal grounds weak and the public interest against release strong.
The court revoked Allen Dolphus Evans’ bail after conviction for sexual assault, finding detention necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice pending sentencing.
Bail pending appeal was refused because the appellant’s repeated breaches of court orders and driving-related misconduct made detention necessary in the public interest.
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.
The Ontario Court of Appeal granted bail pending appeal, finding the appeal barely non-frivolous and the public-interest balance favoured release.
The Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s s. 680 application and directed review of a bail pending appeal order in a murder case, finding an arguable failure to assess appeal strength.
The bail application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show his grounds of appeal clearly surpass the minimal "not frivolous" standard (ineffective assistance claim was underdeveloped and consent findings were well grounded and entitled to deference; the sentence ground was undeveloped), and because detention in the public interest was necessary: public safety and enforceability concerns arising from a pattern of intimate partner violence and repeated breaches of release conditions outweighed the reviewability interest.
Source excerpt
Bail pending appeal is granted because the applicant met the s.679(3) requirements: the appeal is not frivolous, he will surrender, and detention is not required in the public interest; given the short 13‑month sentence the reviewability interest outweighs enforceability and proposed conditions (increased surety, GPS monitoring, residence and a prohibition on driving ride‑share passengers) sufficiently mitigate the flight risk despite his prior attempt to leave.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to satisfy the public interest limb of s.679(3); given the seriousness of the offences as found by the trial judge, the appellant’s history of breaching court orders, the inadequacy and unsuitability of the proposed sureties and release plan, and the untested, outdated expert opinion, the risk to public safety and lack of public confidence (enforceability outweighing reviewability) justify continued detention pending appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
