Sunday, March 11, 2007

Principles of Canadian Bail - Resources for Lawyers

Here is a collection of bail principles I have put together over the years that I find assists me tremendously in the bail hearings I conduct. The best advantage it provides the lawyer is the ability to have all the major principles of bail right at your fingertips to succinctly and smoothly integrate into your submissions. I hope it helps as mush as it has helped me and my associates over the years.

You are welcome to print it out and carry it in your briefcase as I do for the surprise bail hearings that often transpire. Obviously I cannot guarantee the accuracy or status-recency of the cites - I leave such tasks of note-up to the lawyer arguing the bail. Here are a couple of excepts to the entire document that is linked to this post and saved as a PDF under "Bail Summaries" in the link provided (right top hand of the page)

“At the heart of a free and democratic society is the liberty of its subjects. Liberty lost is never regained and can never be fully compensated for; therefore, where the potential exists for the loss of freedom for even a day, we, as a free and democratic society, must place the highest emphasis on ensuring that our system of justice minimizes the chances of an unwarranted loss of liberty.”

- Iacobucci (dissent in Hall) at para 47; 2002 SCC 64, 4 C.R. (6th) 197, 217 D.L.R. (4th) 536, 167 C.C.C. (3d) 449, 293 N.R. 239, 165 O.A.C. 319, 97 C.R.R. (2d) 189, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309


The grant or denial of bail implicates not only s. 11(e) of the Charter but also the accused person's liberty and security of the person interests. Bail is not a privilege. Judicial interim release should only be withheld where it is necessary[1]… Where bail is unjustly denied, there is a miscarriage of justice. It cannot be over emphasized that pre-trial bail rests on the presumption of innocence.[2]

- R. v. J.V. (Villota) [2002] O.J. No. 1027 (Ont.Sup.Ct.) Hill J. at paragraph 64
[1] : The Queen v. Morales (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 91 (S.C.C.) at 197 per Lamer C.J.C.; Regina v. Hall (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (Ont. C.A.) at 295-6 per Osborne A.C.J.O. (leave to appeal granted [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 552); Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections (the Ouimet Report) (1969), at pages 99, 108. [2] The Queen v. Pearson (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 124 (S.C.C.) at 135-9 per Lamer C.J.C.; Regina v. Farinacci (1993), 86 C.C.C. (3d) 32 (Ont. C.A.) at 39 per Arbour J.A. (as she then was).

Link to Canadian Criminal Legal Links - Criminal Lawyer in Toronto - Sean Robichaud

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You are a godsend. I am a self represented accused person and since finding this document I have had my matter brought before the Superior Court for a variation. I argued that the prsecution never entered and credible or trustworthy evidence at the hearing of the initial show cause application and the the justice, therefore, erred in not releasing in accordance with 515(1) on an undertaking without conditions.