Reverse onus, I believe, will be ruled as illegal.

R v. Hall [2002] is a bit more recent and apt for the matter you refer to:

"Because the impugned phrase confers an open-ended judicial discretion to refuse bail, it is inconsistent with both s. 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees a right "not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause", and the presumption of innocence."

They are a law unto them selves..rember there's 250 million gone..what police force or what court is going to go after any of this..there are two laws! theres and the one they shove down our throats..The most Quiet one has been Rev Canada...they will beat you and me up but when you control the strings that get pulled no one will rock any boat to think otherwise is a fools game.

Hi Jonathan:

Hall was decided on very narrow grounds and did not deal directly with any of the reverse onus provisions in s. 515(6). It held only that the part of s. 515(10)(c) of Criminal Code authorizing the denial of bail "on any other just cause being shown" infringed the presumption of innocence and right "not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause” on the basis that that phrase was too vague. As you likely know though the balance of s. 515(10)(c) survived and an accused can now be detained if his release would be erode the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

I would suggest that the reverse onus for offences involving the use of firearms would be upheld for reasons similar to those utilized in upholding the reverse onus for drug offences:

· violence related offences are extremely destructive and disconcerting from the perspective of the public
· in assessing the application of the reverse onus, the degree of violence used would be evaluated. The more egregious the conduct, the greater would be the difficulty for the accused to show cause why release is justified
· the use (or threatened use) of a weapon in the commission of any offence (and particularly violent offences) would place the conduct at the most serious end of the spectrum of impugned conduct. Consequently it would be that offender who would not likely meet the reverse onus
· the Court would have to be mindful of the fact that there is already significant precedent in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for greater penal sanctions for firearms offences
· there is a specific section making it a separate offence to use a firearm during the commission of an offence. The obvious one is an armed robbery but it can be any offence. If convicted of the separate firearms offence, a consecutive jail term must be imposed for the firearm offence
· the use or threatened use of a firearm is deemed to be an aggravating factor in sentencing for drug offences which presumptively leads to the imposition of a jail term unless there are compelling reasons not to impose that penalty
· one of the terms of bail that the Court must consider for a person charged with a drug offence is a firearms prohibition pending trial
· in a very recent case [R. v. Wiles handed down by the S.C.C. on December 22nd this year], the imposition of a mandatory weapons prohibition [Criminal Code Section 109(1)(c) - 10 year minimum] for every person convicted of a serious drug offence was upheld

I have to agree with Wade on this one. Hall dealt with a very specific concern. The SCC stated that the government can deny bail with very specific and detailed provisions. The crux of Hall was vagueness. More importantly, the majority in Hall applied the ratio in Pearson, which is still the reigning case on reverse onus in bail situations.

there's a law for everything. if they want your ass, you're history. if they miss the first time, they'll cut you a new law and retry you. sheesh, we're gonna be american one day. thanks pierre. oh, wasn't he a lawyer? hmmm, ya gotta wonder.

i pride myself with my comprehension of the english language (okay, so it's not readily apparent as often as i would like). so why can't i follow the language in those laws? written for the common man or for the ilk we must prostrate ourselves for our freedom. makes me sick how you can forget the victim, "client" in the case and hobnob about the definition and interpretation of what precedent will affect some other case should circumstances be duplicated. how far can the law leave the lives of the citizens affected behind?

I observe that if the Justices of the Peace on the job in Toronto had one ounce of sense between them we wouldn't be talking about "reverse onus". I mean, there's a limit to what you can accomplish with hand holding and edicts from above when the front line guys are so stunningly incompetent. What kind of idiot lets a known banger with violent priors out on bail after he's been caught with a gun in his pocket a couple blocks from a shooting? A Toronto JP, that's what kind.

Possibly we should fire them all and replace them with a coin flipping machine. At least the machine will be right half the time.

I loved Clayton Ruby's comment on CTV news tonight.

"The reverse onus provision will be most certainly challenged.

This all smacks of cheap electioneering, for a sound bite and a vote."

It sounds good but inherently does nothing just like the handgun ban.

The comments on this thread are excellent. One learns more from a blog than the MSM and the politicians ever reveal.

Based on the information presented here, it would appear that reverse onus is mandatory when related to criminal organization, ie gang activity.

So why are we not seeing civil suits related to the Crown not taking correct action in these gun crimes?

weight loss product attorneys counter loss over product weight http://www.hallkidstales.com/weight/herbal_life_weight_loss_product.html extreme weight loss products loss nutrition product weight http://www.hallkidstales.com/weight/weight_loss_products_review.html and .... loss opinion product that weight work label loss private product weight http://www.hallkidstales.com/weight/what_is_the_most_effective_weight_loss_product.html otc weight loss products and consumer reports comparisons herbalife weight loss herbal product http://www.hallkidstales.com/weight/cortisol_loss_product_weight.html compare weight loss product australian weight loss products http://www.hallkidstales.com/weight/herbal_loss_product_weight.html .Thanks.