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 British Columbia directed a review of the refusal of bail pending appeal, finding arguable errors in the public-interest analysis.
The motion for bail pending appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove detention was not necessary in the public interest: the release plan and surety were inadequate and unreliable (including misstatements about employment and the source/amount of the surety deposit), the appellant failed to credibly disclose multiple outstanding criminal charges which undermined trust and enforceability, and the grounds of appeal were of questionable strength so enforceability concerns outweigh reviewability.
Source excerpt
Although the applicant's failure to surrender was inadvertent and the appeal was not frivolous, public safety concerns and the impracticality of enforcing no-internet conditions without sureties justified increasing the financial security; accordingly a release under s.679(1) was granted with a $50,000 promise to pay and a $20,000 deposit payable forthwith to deter non-compliance.
Source excerpt
In a s. 525 detention review, the court ordered Clayton Wade Zeleniski’s release on strict conditions, finding his revised plan sufficiently addressed public safety concerns.
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.
Source excerpt
Although the appellant satisfied s.679(3)(a) and (b), the motion was dismissed because continued detention was necessary in the public interest: the seriousness and protracted nature of the domestic violence convictions (including firearms‑related allegations), residual safety concerns arising from new charges relating to the complainant, and limits in the proposed surety regime and release plan meant enforceability and public confidence outweighed the reviewability interest.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed Reza Moazami’s bail pending appeal application, finding he had not shown he would refrain from reoffending if released.
Breach of the house arrest condition was established beyond a reasonable doubt; balancing preservation of the pull of bail with proportionality and specific facts (principal's effective custodial sentence, limited means, and surety's partial lack of diligence), the court ordered partial forfeitures: principal Nicole Rhyno to forfeit $1,000 and surety Trevor Miles to forfeit $500 rather than full forfeiture.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove under s.679(3) that his detention is not necessary in the public interest; given the seriousness of the violent offence, weak and problematic grounds of appeal, extensive violent criminal record, lack of candor, and an inadequate surety/release plan, enforceability of the judgment outweighs reviewability and release is denied.
Source excerpt
Motion dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy s.679(3): he did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that immediate and adequate methadone treatment would be available upon release; that risk of relapse undermined both his likely surrender and the public interest requirement.
Source excerpt
Explore more
