Appeal

Criminal Law: Bail; Breaking Curfew/Conditions

R. v. Zora2020 SCC 14 (38540)

“Z was charged with drug offences and was granted bail with conditions, including a curfew and a requirement that he present himself at the door of his residence within five minutes of a peace officer or bail supervisor attending to confirm his compliance with his curfew. Z twice failed to present himself at his door when police attended, and was charged under s. 145(3)  of the Criminal Code  with two counts of breaching his curfew and two counts of breaching his condition to answer the door. Z led evidence that he was in his bedroom where it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to hear the doorbell or someone knocking on the door. The trial judge acquitted Z on the alleged curfew violations but convicted Z on the two counts of failing to appear at the door. A summary conviction appeal judge dismissed Z’s appeal, concluding that objective mens rea is sufficient for a conviction under s. 145(3)  and that Z’s behaviour was a marked departure from what a reasonable person would do to ensure they complied with their bail conditions. The Court of Appeal dismissed Z’s appeal. A majority of the court concluded that s. 145(3)  created a duty-based offence that only requires an objective mens rea.”

The S.C.C. (9:0) allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial on the two counts of failing to attend at the door.

Justice Martin wrote as follows (at paras. 4-6, 124-126):

“I conclude that the Crown is required to prove subjective mens rea and no lesser form of fault will suffice. Under s. 145(3), the Crown must establish that the accused committed the breach knowingly or recklessly. Nothing in the text or context of s. 145(3) displaces the presumption that Parliament intended to require a subjective mens rea. Further, this intention is supported by this Court’s jurisprudence on the interpretation of the breach of probation offence, the consequences of charges and convictions under s. 145(3), the role of s. 145(3) within the constitutional and legislative scheme of bail, and the practical operation of the bail system. A subjective mens rea standard for breach under s. 145(3), like Parliament’s recent amendments to the bail scheme, keeps the focus on the individual accused, where it belongs.

The parties and intervenors recognize that the question of the mens rea requirement for s. 145(3) raises broader considerations about the functioning of our complex bail system. The breach of a bail condition reaches back to, and is based upon, the conditions imposed at the beginning of the bail process. In Antic, this Court endorsed principles for reasonable bail based on documented concerns over how the bail system operates across Canada. Three years after Antic, and with the same goal of providing guidance, I address the imposition of non-monetary bail conditions and the criminal offences that result from their breach. A similarly wide-angle lens is required. Offences under s. 145(3) are very common, on the rise, and often involve questionable conditions imposed upon vulnerable and marginalized persons. Parliament has recently acted to address how numerous and onerous bail conditions interact with s. 145(3) to create a cycle of incarceration, especially among the most vulnerable in our population. This Court cannot ignore the current context in which the bail system operates, and in response provides guidance on both the interpretation of s. 145(3) and the imposition of the bail conditions that lead to these charges.

All those involved in the bail system are to be guided by the principles of restraint and review when imposing or enforcing bail conditions. The principle of restraint requires any conditions of bail to be clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10). The principle of review requires everyone, and especially judicial officials, to carefully scrutinize bail conditions at the release stage whether the bail is contested or is on consent. Most bail conditions restrict the liberty of a person who is presumed innocent. Breach can lead to serious legal consequences for the accused and the large number of breach charges has important implications for the already over-burdened justice system. Before transforming bail conditions into personal sources of potential criminal liability, judicial officials should be alive to possible problems with the conditions. Requiring subjective mens rea to affix criminal liability under s. 145(3) reflects the principles of restraint and review and mirrors the individualized approach mandated for the imposition of bail conditions.


This is not a case where the curative proviso allows this Court to dismiss an appeal under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) because there was “no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” despite an error of law. The curative proviso is only appropriate where the “error is harmless or trivial” or “where the evidence is so overwhelming that, notwithstanding that the error is not minor, the trier of fact would inevitably convict” (R. v. Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 272, at para. 53). Mens rea is an essential element of a criminal offence and identifying the wrong fault standard is not a “harmless or trivial” error. A subjective mens rea would have required the trial judge to consider Mr. Zora’s state of mind, which clearly could have had an impact on the verdict.

The evidence is also not so overwhelming that a conviction is inevitable. As the trial judge was focussed on what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, he did not need to make clear factual findings or definitive findings of credibility that would allow this Court to assess or infer Mr. Zora’s knowledge and state of mind. If established at trial, Mr. Zora’s personal circumstances, including whether he was sleeping deeply due to heroin withdrawal and methadone treatment, would be relevant to determining his state of mind. As described above, recklessness requires knowledge of the substantial and unjustified risk of circumstances leading to a prohibited breach. Without a clear finding that Mr. Zora was aware of the risk that he could not hear the police at his door, as well as other findings of fact necessary to determine whether that risk was substantial and unjustified, the Court cannot find that he was reckless in failing to answer the door.

The trial judge’s negative statements concerning the credibility of the defence witnesses mean that an acquittal would also not be appropriate. A new trial is needed to address whether Mr. Zora knowingly or recklessly breached his conditions.”

Full Decision