Read on Twitter
Justice Martin’s reasons in Zora are a must read. Anyone interested in mens rea issues, statutory interpretation, systemic issues that prevail in our crim just system, and what excellent legal writing entails has to read the decision.
I am not sure whether we are done with the imposition of inappropriate bail conditions. Justice Martin went out of her way to tie the intent analysis to: (1) the appropriate way to impose bail conditions and
(2) other procedures, like revocation, that are more appropriate to follow. Much in Zora is directed to the Crown. Every Crown has a responsibility of seeking appropriate bail conditions. Appropriate does not mean the maximum that can be imposed, but the bare minimum needed
Much in Zora is also directed to judicial officials who cannot abdicate their responsibility to impose the appropriate conditions based on consent of the accused. I have a feeling that some will argue that Zora is not binding on how bail is set because that disc. is obiter.
In my view, though, the approach to setting bail conditions was not incidental and the reasons attempt to make it a central aspect of the case. If Binnie J’s comments in R v Henry are taken seriously, as they should, everything said on setting bail conditions in Zora is binding.
I hope that Zora changes things on the ground. If it doesn’t, then it is inevitable that the SCC will have to intervene again. To my mind, imposing conditions like those in Zora is nothing short of inappropriate and have no place in a society that cherishes civil liberties.
