Reviewing a Bail Order of the Superior Court


There is concurrent jurisdiction in the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal to conduct a bail review under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Durrani, 2008 ONCA 856 (CanLII), at para. 16;

This results from the definitions of “superior court of criminal jurisdiction” and “judge” in sections 2 and 493 of the Criminal Code including both judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

A judge of the Superior Court of Justice may review the bail order (including a detention order) made by another judge of that same court.

R. v. Rootenberg, 2018 ONCA 335.

Section 520 clearly envisions more than one opportunity to bring a bail review application and contemplates that different judges of the superior court will sometimes hear these applications.

R. v. Durrani, 2008 ONCA 856 (CanLII), at para. 29.

Absent special circumstances, courts of appeal should deal with bail pending appeal and superior courts should deal with bail prior to and during a trial.

R. v. Durrani, at para. 34.

An alleged error of law by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice does not, on its own, qualify as a special circumstance justifying a judge of the Court of Appeal to entertain a review.

R. v. Rootenberg, 2018 ONCA 335, at para. 16; 

for a non-exhaustive list of what may constitute special circumstances see para. 29 of Durrani;

see also R. v. George, 2018 ONCA 314.



Criminal Code.
Section 520(1).

If a justice … makes an order under subsection 515(2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (12) or makes or vacates any order under paragraph 523(2)(b), the accused may, at any time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a review of the order.



Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca (all rights reserved to author).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more