R. v. L.
My client was charged with failing to comply with his recognizance where it was alleged that Mr. L breached his residence condition. Per his bail conditions, Mr. L had to live with his surety and be amendable to the routine and discipline of the household.
Mr. L had already been living with his surety for a number of months when he was told by his surety that the landlord was upset that Mr. L was staying there because he was not on the lease. Due to this, Mr. L made arrangements to stay elsewhere temporarily until the situation with the landlord had been worked out. He had every intention of returning to his surety’s address.
The Crown made the argument that Mr. L should have obtained a bail variation because it was the Crown’s view that he was not complying with his residence condition. Further, the Crown argued because there was no end date to the absence, that was not in fact temporary.
Ms. Bristow presented the court with an Ontario Court of Appeal case that supported her position of Mr. L's absence being only temporary given the circumstances. Ms. Bristow argued that although there was no specific end date to the absence, that Mr. L had every intention of returning to his surety's home. As a result, the court agreed with Ms. Bristow that the mens rea, or mental element, which is required in all criminal offences was not made out.
Mr. L, whose underlying charges had already been withdrawn, was able to go home a free man with no criminal record.
If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at email@example.com
Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
Here, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court.