Ontario Criminal

Extraordinary Remedies

Judge erred by failing to remand accused after cancellation of release

Accused pleaded guilty to three counts of breaching an undertaking while awaiting sentencing on underlying charges. At sentencing hearing on breach counts Crown sought cancellation of accused’s release on underlying charges. Defence argued that court had no jurisdiction to cancel release because accused had not formally been arrested pursuant to s. 524(1) or (2) of Criminal Code. Sentencing judge imposed 10-day sentence and ordered accused’s release cancelled. Matter was spoken to again two days later after judge was told she had not remanded the accused. Sentencing judge remanded accused in custody for six weeks to the date for her sentencing hearing on the outstanding charges. Application for writ of habeas corpus granted. Sentencing judge was entitled to cancel accused’s release despite lack of formal arrest pursuant to s. 524(1) or (2). Accused was lawfully detained and had received notice that Crown would bring s. 524 application so arrest or re-arrest was not required. Sentencing judge erred by failing to remand accused to next available bail court after cancellation of her release. Warrant of remand quashed.

R. v. Ramage

(June 13, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Fregeau J., File No. CR-11-006-MO) 96 W.C.B. (2d) 293 (29 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?