Blog

[Recognizances issued under section 810 of the Criminal Code are informally and regularly referred to as peace bonds, particularly by non-jurists. For ease of reference, I will refer to them here as 810 peace bonds.]A peace bond can be obtained through an information sworn pursuant to s. 810 of the Criminal Code or relying on the common law to require a person to enter a common law peace bond without reference to s. 810 of the Criminal Code.  Re:  Regina v. Shaben et al. (1972), 1972 CanLII 358 (ON SC), 8 C.C.C. (2d) 422.  The onus is on the applicant on the balance of probabilities.  Mackenzie v.  Martin 1954 CanLII 10 (SCC), [1954] S.C.R. 361 at 368.  Once the application is made the accused can either seek to show cause why he or she should not enter the bond, enter the bond as proposed or not show cause but contest one or more of the suggested terms.The applicant must persuade the application judge that he or she fears for his or her safety and the application judge must be satisfied that their fear is a reasonable one. This fear need not be specifically stated by an applicant as the court can infer it from the totality of the evidence received (see J.H. v. W.B. (2001), 2001 YKTC 502 (CanLII), 44 C.R. (5th) 39 (Y.T. Terr. Ct.)).Differences Between Common Law and Section 810 Peace BondsThe differences in the applications are that a s. 810 peace bond is based on a sworn information while a common law peace bond generally is not; a s. 810 bond can be for a period not to exceed 12 months while there is no maximum period for a common law bond;

Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fulfills its purpose in two ways.  First, it requires that the detainee be advised of his right to counsel.  This is called the informational component.  Second, it requires that the detainee be given an opportunity to exercise his right to consult counsel.  This is called the implementational component. In today’s blog entry, I discuss the informational component of the section 10(b) Charter right.  Or more simply: what must the police tell you upon arrest/detention? Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention                 a. to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;                 b. to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. Overview of the 10(b) right The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the purpose of the right to retain and instruct counsel guaranteed by section 10(b) of the Charter is “to allow the detainee not only to be informed of his rights and obligations under the law but, equally if not more important, to obtain advice as to how to exercise those rights”. R. v. Manninen, 1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 at 1242-43.  See also R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50 (CanLII), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 495 at para. 21.  A person who is detained or arrested is, “in immediate need of legal advice in order to protect his or her right against self-incrimination and to assist him or her in regaining his or her liberty.” The assistance of counsel helps to ensure that those who are in custody, and therefore in legal jeopardy, are positioned to make a voluntary and informed decision whether or not to

OverviewApplications for a trial adjournment may be made by the Crown or the defence.  It is undisputed that whether an adjournment or a postponement should be granted or not is a discretionary matter for the trial judge: Manhas v. The Queen, 1980 CanLII 172 (SCC, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 591; R. v. Barrette, 1976 CanLII 180 (SCC), , [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121, 29 C.C.C. (2d) 189; R. v. Darville, (1956), 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.); R. v. MacDonald, 1998 CanLII 18016 (NL CA), [1998] N.J. No. 340 (QL) (C.A.) [reported 132 C.C.C. (3d) 205].The leading case governing trial adjournment applications is that of Darvillev. the Queen, (1956) 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.) which sets out a straightforward three-part test.  Though Darville remains foundational, the test has been elaborated and expanded upon and may, it appears, include such additional factors as the consideration of the public interest in having a trial on the merits (including the related consideration of the seriousness of the offences charged), and whether there would be a lack of significant prejudice to the accused.Further—in my opinion—where the defence seeks the request, the accused’s right to full answer and defence and even the right to a fair trial, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,may be engaged.  For an overview of the right to full answer and defence see R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668Trial Adjournment - The Darville Test On the elements to be considered by a judge when asked to grant an adjournment of a criminal trial due to the absence of a witness, the Supreme Court of Canada provided some guidelines in 1956 in R. v. Darville:( 1)   that the absent witnesses are material witnesses in the case;(2)   that the

The Kienapple principle provides that where the same transaction gives rise to two or more convictions on offences with substantially the same elements, the accused should be convicted only of the more serious offence. This is done by the Court staying the lesser charge/s.The Kienapple principle is designed to protect against undue exercise by the Crown of its power to prosecute and punish.  It applies where there is both a factual and a legal nexus between the offences.  The requisite factual nexus is established if the charges arise out of the same transaction.  The legal nexus is established if the offences constitute a single criminal wrong:  see R. v. Rocheleau, 2013 ONCA 679, at para. 24.