Is bail failing? The ongoing friction between Charter rights and confidence in the justice system (Pt.1)

Posted on July 3, 2025 by Taber Times

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

  Bail hearings play out on a regular basis in Taber court and most of them don’t get coverage. Oftentimes, it’s not because the cases aren’t worthy of publicity, it’s because there are ethical implications involved. ‘Accused’ and ‘charged’ don’t mean ‘guilty,’ and individuals charged with a crime have the right to a fair trial and the chance to go about their daily lives without having their alleged misdeeds publicized or used against them.

  On Dec. 5, 2023, the Government of Canada amended the Criminal Code’s bail provisions to promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice. The amendments received Royal Assent and bail reforms were enacted on Jan. 4, 2024.

  Those bail provisions targeted serious repeat violent offenders who used firearms, knives, and other weapons to kill, injure or endanger others. The amendments also took into consideration the risks posed by intimate partner and sexual violence.

  Simply put, bail is when an accused charged with a crime is released from custody while awaiting their trial.  Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “all accused persons have the right to liberty and are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. This means that an individual charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.”

  The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is the highest court in the land, and as such its decisions are inextricably tied to the Charter. In 2015, the SCC noted that “in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception.”

  “Just cause” means the system can’t hold accused persons without a very good reason for doing so.

  Nevertheless, the bail reforms of 2024 included a provision for ‘reverse onus,’ which shifts the onus from the prosecution to the accused. In the case of offenders who have committed murder or violent sex crimes, the onus shifts to the defence to prove why detaining an accused would be unjust and unnecessary.

  Though the federal government establishes criminal law within the bounds set by the Charter, the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the administration of justice, including most bail hearings.

  Bail reform became a hot-button issue after the Canadian public created a hue and cry about the perceived ‘catch and release’ laxity of the justice system. But the balancing act continues; not everyone who is charged with a crime receives bail, but many questionable individuals still do receive it.

  Currently, the law of bail has three main purposes: to ensure those charged with an offence appear in court when required; to maintain public safety by assessing and managing any potential risks if an accused person is released; and to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system.

  In bail hearings, these are referred to as primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and if a judge rules that bail is denied, he/she does so by stating which of these grounds constitute justification for the denial.

  To give the point some local context, a 37-year old Taber man faced obstruction of justice charges after initially being charged with aggravated assault. In April 2025, he was being held in custody, and during his bail hearing, prosecutor Joanna Lehrer pointed to his 25-year criminal history as an argument against his bail release.

  In addition, since his incarceration in Dec. 2024, the man called a woman with whom he was ordered to have no contact a total of 80 times from jail. Lehrer said that on 15 occasions, the man’s calls were answered and during those he tried to convince the young woman to give statements to the police that would exonerate him from the initial assault that resulted in charges against him.

  Lehrer said the transcripts showed that the man had offered the woman both cash and drugs to make those statements to local police. The prosecutor claimed that the man tried to coerce the woman into giving false or misleading statements to the police–and that such a maneuver constituted obstruction of justice, a very serious charge.

  The prosecutor was firm in her assertion that releasing the man would “seriously undermine” the public’s trust in the administration of justice.

  The man’s defence lawyer made significantly less convincing arguments, but Justice Catherine Regier reminded the court that the man had the right not to be detained, and in this case it was the onus of the Crown to prove that his detention was necessary.

  After deliberating in private, Regier judged that the Crown had provided adequate grounds for denial and called the man’s 29 convictions for failing to comply as a “callous disregard for court orders.”

  The allegations of interfering with a witness also disturbed the judge, who said she did not find the testimony of a surety who had volunteered to house the man upon release to be reliable or truthful. She said it was necessary to detain the man until his trial.

  Part two of this story will feature a discussion about this topic with Taber Police Chief Graham Abela and will include a description of the fallout after a man who was granted release in Taber court was out only briefly before being charged with a new list of serious crimes.