Breach of Undertaking, Release Order or Probation Order (Offence)

From Criminal Law Notebook
Revision as of 08:52, 27 August 2024 by Admin (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page was last substantively updated or reviewed August 2021. (Rev. # 96270)
Breach of Undertaking, Recognizance, or Probation
s. 145(4), (5), 733.1, 811 of the Crim. Code
Election / Plea
Crown Election varies
summary proceedings must initiate within 12 months of the offence (786(2))
Jurisdiction varies
Summary Dispositions
Avail. Disp. Discharge (730)

Suspended Sentence (731(1)(a))
Fine (734)
Fine + Probation (731(1)(b))
Jail (718.3, 787)
Jail + Probation (731(1)(b))
Jail + Fine (734)

Conditional Sentence (742.1)
Minimum None
Maximum fine / 6 or 18 months incarceration
Indictable Dispositions
Avail. Disp. same as summary
Minimum None
Maximum 2 years incarceration
Reference
Offence Elements
Sentence Digests

Overview

See also: Failure to Attend Court or Appear (Offence)

The offences of breaching court orders such as undertakings or recognizance are found in Part IV of the Criminal Code relating to "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice". Offences relating to breaches of probation orders are found in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code relating to "Sentencing". Breaches of peace bonds are found in Part XXVII of the Criminal Code relating to "Summary Convictions".

It is an offence to violate supervisory orders that are imposed either pending disposition of a charge or after disposition. Undertaking and recognizances are supervisory orders limiting an accused's liberty while a charge is pending, probation is a form of supervisory order imposed as part of sentence.

Pleadings
Offence
Section
Offence
Type
Crown Election Defence Election
s. 536(2)
Preliminary Inquiry
145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking] Hybrid Offence(s) (under 14 years max)
145(5) [failure to comply with release order] Hybrid Offence(s) (under 14 years max)
733.1 [breach of probation] Hybrid Offence(s) (under 14 years max)
811 [breach of peace bond] Hybrid Offence(s) (under 14 years max)

Offences under s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking] are hybrid with a Crown election. If prosecuted by indictment, there is a Defence election of Court under s. 536(2).

Offences under s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order] are hybrid with a Crown election. If prosecuted by indictment, there is a Defence election of Court under s. 536(2).

Offences under s. 733.1 [breach of probation] are absolute jurisdiction offences under s. 553(a) and so does not have a defence election of court. It must be tried by a provincial court judge.

Offences under s. 811 [breach of peace bond] are hybrid with a Crown election. If prosecuted by indictment, there is a Defence election of Court under s. 536(2).

Release
Offence(s) Appearance Notice
by Peace Officer

s. 497
Summons
by Judge or Justice

s. 508(1), 512(1), or 788
Release by
Peace Officer
on Undertaking

s. 498, 499, and 501
Release By
a Judge or Justice
on a Release Order

s. 515 to 519
Direct to Attend
for Fingerprints, etc.
Identification of Criminals Act

s. 2 ID Crim. Act
s. 145(3) [failure to comply with undertaking],
145(5) [failure to comply with release order],
733.1 [breach of probation] and
811 [breach of peace bond]

When charged under s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking], s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order], s. 733.1 [breach of probation] and 811 [breach of peace bond] , the accused can be given an appearance notice without arrest under s. 497 or a summons. If arrested, he can be released by the arresting officer under s. 498 or 499 on an undertaking with or without conditions. He can also be released by a justice under s. 515.

Reverse Onus Bail

If police decide to bring the accused before a Justice pursuant to s. 503, there will be a presumption against bail (i.e. a reverse onus) if the offence, prosecuted by indictment, was committed:

  • while at large under s. 515 [bail release], 679 or 680 [release pending appeal or review of appeal] (s. 515(6)(a)(i));
  • "for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association" with a criminal organization (s. 515(6)(a)(ii));
  • where the offence involved a weapon, being a firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, while the accused was subject to a prohibition order preventing possession of these items (s. 515(6)(a)(viii)); or
  • where the accused is not "ordinarily a resident in Canada" (s. 515(6)(b)).

And, regardless of Crown election, if the offence alleged was one:

  • where the offence was an allegation of violence against an "intimate partner" and the accused had been previously convicted of an offence of violence against an "intimate partner" (s. 515(6)(b.1));
  • where the offence alleged is a breach under s. 145(2) to (5) while (s. 515(6)(c));
  • where the offence committed (or conspired to commit) was an offence under s. 5 to 7 of the CDSA that is punishable by life imprisonment (s. 515(6)(d));

There will be a reverse onus for charges under s. 145(2) to (5) "that is alleged to have been committed while he was at large after being released in respect of another offence pursuant to the provisions of [Part XVI regarding compelling appearance for an accused] or s. 679, 680 or 816 [regarding release pending appeal or review of appeal]".

Fingerprints and Photos

A peace officer who charges a person under s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking], (5) [failure to comply with release order], 733.1 [breach of probation], or 811 [breach of peace bond] of the Code can require that person to attend for the taking of fingerprints, photographs or other similar recordings that are used to identify them under the Identification of Criminals Act.

Publication Bans

For all criminal or regulatory prosecutions, there is a discretionary general publication ban available on application of the Crown, victim or witness to prohibit the publishing of "any information that could identify the victim or witness" under s. 486.5(1) where it is "necessary" for the "proper administration of justice". Other available publication bans include prohibitions for publishing evidence or other information arising from a bail hearing (s. 517), preliminary inquiry (s. 539) or jury trial (s. 648). There is a mandatory publication ban in all youth prosecutions on information tending to identify young accused under s. 110 of the YCJA or young victims under s. 111 of the YCJA.

Offence Designations
Offence(s) Wiretap
Eligible

s. 183
Dangerous Offender
Designated Offence

s. 752
Serious Personal
Injury Offence

s. 752
AG Consent Required Serious Criminality
Offence
s. 36 IRPA
s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking], (5) [failure to comply with release order], 733.1 [breach of probation], or 811 [breach of peace bond]

See below in Ancillary Sentencing Orders for details on designations relating to sentencing orders.

Offence Wording

Failure to comply with Undertaking

145
[omitted (1), (2)and (3)]

Failure to comply with undertaking

(4) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or an offence punishable on summary conviction who,

(a) is at large on an undertaking and who fails, without lawful excuse, to comply with a condition of that undertaking; or
(b) is at large on an undertaking that has been confirmed by a justice under section 508 [justice to hear informant and witnesses] and who fails, without lawful excuse, to appear at the time and place stated in the undertaking for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act or to attend court in accordance with the undertaking.

[omitted (5), (5.1), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11)]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 145; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 20; 1992, c. 47, s. 68; 1994, c. 44, s. 8; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 1997, c. 18, s. 3; 2008, c. 18, s. 3; 2018, c. 29, s. 9; 2019, c. 25, s. 47; 2022, c. 17, s. 4.

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 145(4)

Failure to comply with Undertaking

145
[omitted (1), (2), (3) and (4)]

Failure to comply with order

(5) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, who

(a) is at large on a release order and who fails, without lawful excuse, to comply with a condition of that release order other than the condition to attend court; or
(b) is bound to comply with an order under subsection 515(12) [order re no communication on detention], 516(2) [Detention pending bail hearing] or 522(2.1) [Order re no communication — s. 469 offences] and who fails, without lawful excuse, to comply with that order.

[omitted (5.1), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 145; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 20; 1992, c. 47, s. 68; 1994, c. 44, s. 8; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 1997, c. 18, s. 3; 2008, c. 18, s. 3; 2018, c. 29, s. 9; 2019, c. 25, s. 47; 2022, c. 17, s. 4.

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 145(5)

Breach of Probation

Failure to comply with probation order

733.1 (1) An offender who is bound by a probation order and who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with that order is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than four years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Where accused may be tried and punished

(2) An accused who is charged with an offence under subsection (1) [Failure to comply with probation order] may be tried and punished by any court having jurisdiction to try that offence in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed or in the place where the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody, but where the place where the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody is outside the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, no proceedings in respect of that offence shall be instituted in that place without the consent of the Attorney General of that province.
1995, c. 22, s. 6; 2015, c. 23, s. 18; 2019, c. 25, s. 298.

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 733.1(1) and (2)

Breach of Peace Bond/Recognizance

Breach of recognizance

811 A person bound by a recognizance under any of sections 83.3 [terrorism recognizance] and 810 to 810.2 [peace bonds] who commits a breach of the recognizance is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than four years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 811; 1993, c. 45, s. 11; 1994, c. 44, s. 82; 1997, c. 17, s. 10, c. 23, ss. 20, 27; 2001, c. 41, s. 23 2015, c. 20, s. 27, c. 23, s. 19, c. 29, s. 12; 2019, c. 25, s. 322.

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 811

Draft Form of Charges

See also: Draft Form of Charges
Pre-ambles
"THAT [accused full name] stands charged that, between the <DATE> day of <MONTH>, <YEAR> and <DATE> day of <MONTH>, <YEAR>***, at or near <COMMUNITY/TOWN/CITY>, <PROVINCE>, he [or she]..." OR
"THAT [accused full name] stands charged that, on or about the <DATE> day of <MONTH>, <YEAR>, at or near <COMMUNITY/TOWN/CITY>, <PROVINCE>, he [or she]..." OR
"AND FURTHER at the same time and place aforesaid, he [or she]..."
Code Section Subject of Offence Draft Wording
145(4) failing to comply with undertaking - pre justice confirmation "..., being at large on his undertaking given to a peace officer and being bound to comply with that undertaking, did fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that undertaking, to wit: [particulars], contrary to section 145(4) of the Criminal Code."
145(4) failing to comply with undertaking - post justice confirmation "..., being at large on his undertaking given to a peace officer that has been confirmed by a justice under s. 508 of the Criminal Code, did fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that undertaking, to wit: [particulars], contrary to section 145(4) of the Criminal Code."
145(5) failing to comply with release order "..., being at learge on a reslease order entered into before a justice or judge without lawful excuse did fail to comply with a condition of said release order, to wit: [particulars], contrary to section 145(5) of the Criminal Code."
733.1 breach of probation "..., being a person bound by a probation order made [place and date where it was made and judge who made it] without reasonable excuse failed or refused to comply with that order, to wit: [particulars], contrary to section 733.1 of the Criminal Code."
811 "..., contrary to section 811 of the Criminal Code."

Proof of the Offence

Proving failure to comply with release order under s. 145(5) should include:

  1. identity of accused as culprit
  2. date and time of the incident
  3. jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
  4. that the Crown must prove that the accused was bound by an undertaking or recognizance;
  5. that the accused committed an act which was prohibited by the undertaking or recognizance or that the accused failed to perform an act required to be performed by that undertaking or recognizance; and
  6. the accused knowingly (or recklessly) and voluntarily performed or failed to perform the act or omission which constitutes the actus reus of the offence.[1]

Proving breach of probation under s. 733.1 should include:

  1. identity of accused as culprit
  2. date and time of the incident
  3. jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
  4. the culprit was previously convicted of an offence for which the sentence included a period of probation
  5. the culprit was bound by the probation order at the time
  6. that the accused committed an act which was prohibited by the probation order or that the accused failed to perform an act required to be performed by that probation order; and
  7. the culprit knowingly (or recklessly) and voluntarily performed or failed to perform the act or omission which constitutes the actus reus of the offence.
  1. R v Custance, 2005 MBCA 23 (CanLII, 194 CCC (3d) 225, per Steel JA (3:0), at para 10

Interpretation of the Offence

The condition to report to the door for compliance checks creates a duty on the accused. Failure of that duty is an offence.[1]

Mens rea, Breach of Recognizance

The offence's mens rea is on an objective fault standard.[2]

Mens Rea, Breach Probation

The Crown must prove that the accused intended to breach his probation conditions. This means the accused must have known that he was bound by the probation order as well as the terms of the order. The mens rea of the offence can be satisfied by an "objective recklessness."[3]

The use of the word "refusing" in a breach of a probation order, requires the accused "know what [he was] not complying with" and "deliberately flout them."[4]

Previously, breaches required wilful intent. This was inferred from the facts.[5]

Validity of Order Not a Defence
See also: Rule Against Collateral Attack

An accused charged with an offence that did not exist at the time of the alleged offence, resulting in a nullity, does not affect the validity of recognizance conditions.[6]

Lawful Excuse

Once the crown establishes a prima facie case, the accused is responsible to "establish a lawful excuse for not complying" with the conditions on a balance of probabilities.[7]

Failure to Pay Fines

If the breach is for the failure to pay restitution, the failure to make the payments in and of itself is prima facie evidence that the accused intended not to pay.[8]

Breach of s. 810 Order vs Breach of Undertaking/Recognizance

A breach of an 810 beach bond does not amount to an offence under s. 145(3).[9]

Kienapple

The kienapple principle does not apply to a single action that violates both a recognizance and a probation order.[10] A conviction for a substantive offence that results in a breach charge does not prohibit a conviction for the breach.[11]

  1. R v Zora, 2019 BCCA 9 (CanLII), 370 CCC (3d) 111, per Stromberg-Stein JA (5:0) (Fenlon JA concurring in results only)
  2. Zora, ibid., at para 2 ("the duty-based nature of s. 145(3), combined with the risk-based nature of bail provisions, support Parliament’s intention for the application of an objective fault standard. ")
  3. cf. R v DJM, 2010 BCSC 448 (CanLII), per Borrows J (seems to suggest recklessness not enough)
  4. Docherty, ibid., at para 14
  5. Docherty, ibid.
  6. R v Kenny, 2003 CanLII 5917 (ON CA), 174 CCC (3d) 389, per MacPherson JA
  7. R v Flores-Rivas, 2008 BCSC 1595 (CanLII), per Bennett J, at paras 15 to 16
    R v Ludlow, 1999 BCCA 365 (CanLII), 136 CCC (3d) 460, per Hall JA (2:1)
  8. R v Sugg, 1986 CanLII 124 (NS CA), 28 CCC (3d) 569, per Macdonald JA (3:0)
  9. R c Simanek, 1993 CanLII 14660 (ON CA), [1993] 82 CCC (3d) 576, per curiam
  10. R v Poker, 2009 NLCA 33 (CanLII), 885 APR 22, per Rowe JA
    R v Furlong, 1993 CanLII 7747 (NL CA), [1993] NJ No 168, per Marshall JA
  11. Furlong, ibid.

Proving the Existence and Duration of Order

See also: Public and Judicial Documents

The crown is obliged to prove the existence of the recognizance at the relevant time. It cannot be assumed.[1]

The proof of the existence of the recognizance on the date of issue does not create a presumption that the accused was bound on the date of the offence. The Crown must also prove that the order was in place on the day of the offence.[2]

In proving the existence of a probation order, an original certified copy of the order may be submitted as an exhibit without notice at the common law.[3] This is likewise the case in proving an order of disqualification from driving.[4]

The court may use its own records as evidence. Ambiguities in the records can be clarified by calling the court clerk to give clarifying evidence.[5]

Any court records examined by the court must be done so in the presence of counsel and counsel must be invited to make submissions on their interpretation.[6]

The probation order must be in effect at the time of the breach. Accordingly, a call from jail to a prohibited person is not a breach under the associated probation order since the order does not commence until release.[7]

  1. R v Han, 2008 ONCJ 688 (CanLII), OJ No 5428, per Wakefield J
  2. R v Truong, 2008 BCSC 1151 (CanLII), 235 CCC (3d) 547, per Smart J, at para 33
  3. R v Lebreux, [1993] NWTJ No 97 (*no CanLII links)
  4. R v Tatomir, 1989 ABCA 233 (CanLII), 99 AR 188, per Heatherington JA
  5. R v West, 2009 BCSC 1164 (CanLII), per N Brown J
  6. R v Poole, 2014 BCSC 102 (CanLII), per Butler J
  7. R v Fazekas, 2003 CanLII 48250 (ON CA), 171 OAC 114, per curiam

Keep the Peace and be of Good Behaviour

The condition to "keep the peace and be of good behaviour" contemplates two different types of offences. The provision to "keep the peace" is separate from the condition to be of "good behaviour."[1]

Disorderly conduct that violates public peace will amount to a breach of the "peace."[2] This does not however include cursing or swearing at police.[3]

The term "be of good behaviour" means that the person must comply with federal, provincial, municipal statutes or regulatory provisions as well as court orders.[4]

There is some dispute over whether breaching "good behaviour" requires breach of law or regulation . There is a line of cases that says you must have a violation.[5] While others state that there in no such limitation.[6]

  1. R v SS, 1999 CanLII 18981 (NL CA), 138 CCC (3d) 430, per Green JA, at para 6
  2. R v Badenoch, 1968 CanLII 815 (BC CA), [1969] 1 CCC 78, per Tysoe JA
    SS, supra
    R v Gosai [2002] OJ No 359 (SCJ)(*no CanLII links)
  3. R v Shea, 2010 NSPC 70 (CanLII), 947 APR 169, per Derrick J
  4. R v DR, 1999 CanLII 13903 (NL C.A.), per Green JA
    R v Grey (1993) 19 CR 4th 363 (Ont.) (*no CanLII links)
  5. DR, supra
    Grey, supra
    R v Barker (1967), 3 CRNS 58 (Y.F. Mag. Ct.) (*no CanLII links)
  6. R v M(SAM) [1994] SJ No 537 (SKPC) (*no CanLII links)
    R v Johnson, 1993 CanLII 15028 (MB QB), Man. R. (2d) 43
    SS, supra

Forgetfulness

Forgetfulness has been successful as a defence to the reporting condition for probation.[1]

  1. R v Bremmer, 2006 ABPC 93 (CanLII), per Fraser J

Contact/Communicate/Associate

"Contact"

"Contact" has a broader meaning than "communicate" and "associate."[1] Contact does not require communication.[2] Smirking and extending a middle finger can amount to contact with a complainant.[3] However, not every facial reaction upon incidental contact should be considered a breach.[4]

Contact can be found by voluntarily entering into the place of business of the complainant.[5]

Minimal Contact

"Contact" must be more than simply incidental, momentary physical proximity, accidental, fleeting or unavoidable. There must be "an element of purposeful contact that is intrusive, disruptive or communicative."[6] A person is able to go "about their business" without fear that an incidental run-in will cause a breach.[7]

"Communication"

The term "communication" can take the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word and includes the transmission of information.[8] It does not need a "mutuality" between the recipient of the communication.[9]

Communication can include certain acts or gestures. [10]

It would appear that any form of communication will also be a form of contact.[11]

Failed Attempt to Communicate

An act that may have amounted to an attempt to communicate is not sufficient to breach a communication provision.[12]

Irrelevant Considerations

Communication that is initiated by the party protected by the condition will still amount to an offence.[13]

The purpose of the communication has no bearing on the meaning of "communication" in the offence.[14]

Mens Rea

Since there must be intent when breaching a contact order, simply running into a person by accident will not be sufficient.[15] Nor will "mere carelessness or failure to take precautions that a reasonable person would take" be enough.[16]

The accused must "knowingly or recklessly" breach the specific condition of the undertaking.[17]

  1. R v CAH, 2010 ABPC 375 (CanLII), [2010] AJ No 1354, per Redman J, at para 28 ("...“Contact” is in some respects broader than both “communicate” and “associate”; it generally involves the intrusion into the privacy of another person, or a disruption of individual security, and involves more than the simple act of incidentally and momentarily acquiring physical proximity to another person")
    R v Dupuis and Schipper, 2007 NSSC 136 (CanLII), per Scanlan J citing Judge Beaton 2006 NSPC 66 at para 11
    R v Vader, 2005 ONCJ 149 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending), per Pringle J, at para 12 ("“contact” is a slightly broader concept than “communicate”. There may be contact without communication. For example, one might have contact with someone by knowingly sitting near them in the same restaurant, but still not communicate with them. (See also the facts of Legere, where the court found that when an accused knelt down in the path of two young children, there was no evidence that he had “communicated” with them. Yet, presumably he would at least have been in “contact” with them.) In that sense, the prohibition against contacting someone can be seen as broader than an order forbidding communication with them.")
  2. R v Lofstrom, 2016 ABPC 197 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending), per Saccomani J, at para 54
  3. Dupuis, ibid.
  4. Dupuis, ibid.
  5. R v Downey, 2012 NSPC 74 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending), per Tax J, at para 71
  6. R v Eyles, 2012 ONCJ 463 (CanLII), per Brophy J at 33
    Lofstrom, supra, at para 55 ("A broad interpretation of “contact” in circumstances that might otherwise be described as “fleeting”, “momentary”, “accidental”, “incidental”, or “unavoidable”...")
    R v HBT, 2004 NSSC 56 (CanLII), 221 NSR (2d) 277, per Hall J
  7. Dupuis, ibid.
  8. R v Legere, 1995 CanLII 1551 (ON CA), 95 CCC (3d) 555 ("communication... least connotes an imparting of information from one to another")
    see also Wiretaps for interpretation of "Communication"
  9. Legere, ibid. see also R v Davie, 1980 CanLII 323 (BC CA), 54 CCC (2d) 216, 17 CR (3d) 72, per Hutcheon JA
  10. Legere, ibid. ("Communicating can occur by acts or gestures as well as by words, as the trial judge correctly observed")
  11. R v Al Khatib, 2014 NSPC 62 (CanLII), per Tax J, at para 34 ("... it appears that any instance of “communicating” with someone will also always have some form of “contact” involved. However, I find that the concept of “contact” is broader than that of “communication” as there can be contact without communication. ...")
  12. Legere, ibid. (" the appellant's act may have been an attempt to initiate communication (which was unsuccessful) but it was not an act of communicating as that word is used in the judicial interim release order")
  13. R v Fitzgerald, 1990 CanLII 6481 (NL CA), 280 APR 316, per Marshall JA
  14. R v F(J)[2001] OJ No 2054(*no CanLII links)
  15. R v Eyles, 2012 ONCJ 463 (CanLII), per Brophy J, at para 32
  16. Legere, supra
  17. Lofstrom, supra at para 58
    R v Custance, 2005 MBCA 23 (CanLII), 194 CCC (3d) 225, per Steel J, at para 12 ("... in order to have the requisite mens rea, the accused must knowingly or recklessly infringe the conditions of the undertaking. The Crown does not have to prove that the accused intended to breach the recognizance, but rather only that the accused intended to commit the actus reus.")

Possession of Weapons

An order that prohibits the possession of a firearm, including probation, recognizance or 109/110 Order, will apply whether or not the person is within Canada. They will be personally subject to the order no matter where they are. [1]

  1. R v Rattray, 2008 ONCA 74 (CanLII), 229 CCC (3d) 496, per MacFarland JA (accused bought rifle while in Michigan, no evidence of possession within Canada)

Reside and Curfew Condition

A de minimus argument may be available for a breach of cerfew.[1]

A condition to reside at a certain address is breached even though the accused does not have immediate access to the place and must reside elsewhere until the place is available.[2]

  1. e.g. R v Tan, 2010 ABPC 163 (CanLII), 492 AR 186, per Fradsham J (acquittal for breach of curfew; de minimus principle)
    see also De Minimus Non Curat Lex
  2. R v Custance, 2005 MBCA 23 (CanLII), 194 CCC (3d) 225, per Steel JA

Possession or Use of Drugs

See also: Proof of Bodily Substance in Condition Breach Prosecution

Proceeding Ex Parte

See also: Adjournments and Ex Parte Trial Proceedings

803 [omitted (1) and (2)]

Consent of Attorney General required

(3) If the summary conviction court proceeds in the manner described in paragraph (2)(a) [summary offences – conduct ex parte trial], no proceedings under section 145 arising out of the defendant’s failure to appear at the time and place appointed for the trial or for the resumption of the trial shall, without the consent of the Attorney General, be instituted or be proceeded with.
[omitted (4) and (5) to (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 803; 1991, c. 43, s. 9; 1994, c. 44, s. 79; 1997, c. 18, s.112; 2008, c. 18, s. 45.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 803(3)

Lawful Excuse

145
[omitted (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)]

Not an excuse

(6) For the purposes of subsections (3) [failure to comply with appearance notice or summons] and (4) [failure to comply with undertaking], it is not a lawful excuse that an appearance notice or undertaking states defectively the substance of the alleged offence.
[omitted (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 145; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 20; 1992, c. 47, s. 68; 1994, c. 44, s. 8; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 1997, c. 18, s. 3; 2008, c. 18, s. 3; 2018, c. 29, s. 9; 2019, c. 25, s. 47; 2022, c. 17, s. 4.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 145(6)

Lawful Excuse Under the Contraventions Act

145
[omitted (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (5.1), (6) and (7)]

Election of Crown under Contraventions Act

(8) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) [failure to attend court or surrender – at large on release order] and subsections (3) to (5) [provisions re failure to comply], it is a lawful excuse to fail to attend court in accordance with a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order, to comply with a condition of an undertaking or release order or to fail to appear at the time and place stated in a summons, an appearance notice or an undertaking for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act if — before the failure — the Attorney General, within the meaning of the Contraventions Act, makes an election under section 50 of that Act.
[omitted (9), (10) and (11)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 145; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 20; 1992, c. 47, s. 68; 1994, c. 44, s. 8; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 1997, c. 18, s. 3; 2008, c. 18, s. 3; 2018, c. 29, s. 9; 2019, c. 25, s. 47; 2022, c. 17, s. 4.


[annotation(s) added]

CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)


Note up: 145(8)

Breaches of a Peace Bond

An offence of a "breach of recognizance" under s. 811 is an absolute jurisdiction offence under s. 553(c)(ix) and so there is no defence election. It must be tried by a provincial court judge.

A breach of a peace bond order cannot amount to a breach of an undertaking under s. 145(3).[1]

Terms of a peace bond apply to conduct that occurs in other provinces.[2]

  1. R v Simancek, [1993] OJ No 1342 (O.C.A.)(*no CanLII links)
  2. see e.g. R v Pheiffer, 1999 BCCA 558 (BC CA), 139 CCC (3d) 552, per Ryan JA

Participation of Third Parties

See also: Role of the Victim and Third Parties and Testimonial Aids for Young, Disabled or Vulnerable Witnesses
Testimonial Aids

Certain persons who testify are entitled to make application for the use of testimonial aids: Exclusion of Public (s. 486), Use of a Testimonial Screen (s. 486), Access to Support Person While Testifying (s. 486.1), Close Proximity Video-link Testimony (s. 486.2), Self-Represented Cross-Examination Prohibition Order (s. 486.3), and Witness Security Order (s. 486.7).

A witness, victim or complainant may also request publication bans (s. 486.4, 486.5) and/or a Witness Identity Non-disclosure Order (s. 486.31). See also, Publication Bans, above.

On Finding of Guilt
Offence(s) Victim Notice
of Agreement
s. 606(4.1)
[SPIO]
Victim Queried
for Interest in Agreement
s. 606(4.2)
[5+ years]
Victim Notice
for Restitution
s. 737.1
Victim Notice
of Impact Statement
s. 722(2)
s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order]
s. 733.1 [breach of probation]

Under s. 738, a judge must inquire from the Crown before sentencing whether "reasonable steps have been taken to provide the victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution for their losses and damages".

Under s. 722(2), the judge must inquire "[a]s soon as feasible" before sentencing with the Crown "if reasonable steps have been taken to provide the victim with an opportunity to prepare" a victim impact statement. This will include any person "who has suffered, or is alleged to have suffered, physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss" as a result of the offence. Individuals representing a community impacted by the crime may file a statement under s. 722.2.

Sentencing Principles and Ranges

See also: Purpose and Principles of Sentencing, Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender, and Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offence
Maximum Penalties
Offence(s) Crown
Election
Maximum Penalty
s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking] summary election 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019)
s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking] indictable election 2 years incarceration
s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order] summary election 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019)
s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order] indictable election 2 years incarceration
s. 733.1 [breach of probation] summary election 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019)
s. 733.1 [breach of probation] indictable election 2 years incarceration
s. 811 [breach of peace bond] summary election 18 months incarceration
s. 811 [breach of peace bond] indictable election 4 years incarceration


Offences under s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking] are hybrid. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 2 years incarceration. If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019) .

Offences under s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order] are hybrid. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 2 years incarceration. If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019) .

Offences under s. 733.1 [breach of probation] are hybrid. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 2 years incarceration . If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 2 years less a day jail and/or a $5,000 fine (from Sept 19, 2019).

Offences under s. 811 [breach of peace bond] are hybrid. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 4 years incarceration. If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 18 months incarceration.

Minimum Penalties

These offences have no mandatory minimum penalties.

Available Penalties
Offence(s) Crown
Election
Discharge
s. 730
Suspended
Sentence

s. 731(1)(a)
Stand-alone
Fine

s. 731(1)(b)
Custody
s. 718.3, 787
Custody and
Probation
s. 731(1)(b)
Custody and
Fine
s. 734
Conditional
Sentence
(CSO)
s. 742.1
s. 145(4) [failure to comply with undertaking],
s. 145(5) [failure to comply with release order],
s. 733.1 [breach of probation], and
s. 811 [breach of peace bond]
any

All dispositions are available.The judge may order a discharge (s. 730), suspended sentence (s. 731(1)(a)), fine (s. 731(1)(b)), custody (s. 718.3, 787), custody with probation (s. 731(1)(b)), custody with a fine (s. 734), or a conditional sentence (s. 742.1).

Consecutive Sentences

There are no statutory requirements that the sentences be consecutive.

However, breaches of court orders "will generally be made consecutive to the other related offences."[1]

  1. R v Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2 (CanLII), [2012] NJ No 12, (NLCA), at para 86

Principles

Gravity of Offence

It is "critical" that persons obey their conditions that they are bound by.[1]

The "administration of justice and the public's confidence in the administration of justice depends on compliance with such orders". When they are breached emphasis should be on general and specific deterrence.[2] The judge should consider "general and specific deterrence and the need to protect the public from high-risk offenders ... were paramount." As well as proportionality, gravity and seriousness of the offence.[3]

Where an intimate partner is the subject of alleged violence the complainant has a right to be left alone by the accused.[4]

The purpose of a s. 810 recognizance is to protect the public by preventing future criminal activity.[5]

A breach of condition by absconding from the jurisdiction is considered "more serious than most, if not all, the other breaches."[6]

Sentencing Objectives

The primary purpose for sentencing on a breach of recognizance is the "protection of the public". The main objectives then are specific and general deterrence.[7]

Sentencing for breaches of recognizances should focus on managing the offender’s risk to the community.[8]

Some suggest that a breach of a court order should always involve a jail sentence.[9]

Multiple Offences

Sentences for breach of court orders is a gradual process without a sudden, substantial increase in penalty.[10]

Offender Circumstances

A breach should "be examined in light of the potential for the reasonably foreseeable consequences" of the conduct giving rise to the breach. This includes the offender's history. [11]

Procedure

Under s. 524, when a release order is violated the judge shall cancel the order and then show cause of why the accused should be released.[12]

  1. R v Bates, 2000 CanLII 5759 (ON CA), 146 CCC (3d) 321, per Moldaver and Feldman JJA
  2. R v Seaward, 2003 CanLII 43484 (NL PC), per Gorman J, at para 24
  3. R v Labbe, 2006 CanLII 36608 (ON CA), 214 CCC (3d) 362, per curiam
  4. R v Denkers, 1994 CanLII 2660 (ON CA), OAC 391, per curiam, at p. 394
  5. R v Ballantyne, 2009 SKCA 27 (CanLII), 324 Sask R 71, per Lane JA, at para 5
  6. R v Wilson, 2017 ONCA 229 (CanLII), OJ No 1459, per Epstein JA, at para 27
    Romania v Iusein, 2014 ONSC 623 (CanLII), 307 CCC (3d) 266, per Speyer J, at para 26
  7. R v Zimmerman, 2011 ABCA 276 (CanLII), 530 WAC 374, per curiam
    R v Wilson, 2014 BCPC 193 (CanLII), per Brecknell J, at para 45
  8. Zimmerman, supra
    Wilson, supra, at para 45
  9. R v Murphy, 2011 NLCA 16 (CanLII), [2011] NJ No 43 (CA), per Welsh JA, at para 34
    R v Power, 2010 CanLII 62214 (NL PC), [2010] NJ No 331 (P.C.), per Pike J ( "for breaching court orders almost always involve incarceration to denounce this conduct and send a signal to those who would be so inclined.")
  10. Murphy, supra
  11. R v Helary, 2007 NLCA 47 (CanLII), 268 Nfld & PEIR 267, per Cameron JA, at para 16
  12. see Breach of Release Conditions

Ranges

see also: Breach of Undertaking, Recognizance, or Probation (Sentencing Cases)

In Nova Scotia, a repeat offender should expect to receive 1 to 3 months incarceration for a subsequent breach of s 145 on conditional release.[1]

In Newfoundland, a breach of probation will typically be for 1 to 3 months, unless the election is by indictment where the sentence may be as high as 6 months.[2]

  1. R v Gabriel, 2018 NSSC 252 (CanLII), per Rosinski J, at para 56
  2. R v Murphy, 2011 NLCA 16 (CanLII), 268 CCC (3d) 392, per Welsh JA ("a sentence in the range of one to three months imprisonment, or up to six months where the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, is imposed for the breach of a probation order.")

Ancillary Sentencing Orders

See also: Ancillary Orders
Offence-specific Orders
Order Conviction Description
DNA Orders s. 145(4) or (5)
General Sentencing Orders
Order Conviction Description
Non-communication order while offender in custody (s. 743.21) any The judge has the discretion to order that the offender be prohibited "from communicating...with any victim, witness or other person" while in custody except where the judge "considers [it] necessary" to communicate with them.
Restitution Orders (s. 738) any A discretionary Order is available for things such as the replacement value of the property; the pecuniary damages incurred from harm, expenses fleeing a domestic partner; or certain expenses arising from the commission of an offence under s.402.2 or 403.
Victim Fine Surcharge (s. 737) any A discretionary surcharge under s. 737 of 30% of any fine order imposed, $100 per summary conviction or $200 per indictable conviction. If the offence occurs on or after October 23, 2013, the order has smaller minimum amounts (15%, $50, or $100).
General Forfeiture Orders
Forfeiture Conviction Description
Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime (s. 462.37(1) or (2.01)) any Where there is a finding of guilt for an indictable offence under the Code or the CDSA in which property is "proceeds of crime" and offence was "committed in relation to that property", the property shall be forfeited to His Majesty the King on application of the Crown. NB: does not apply to summary offences.
Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture (s. 462.37(3)) any Where a Court is satisfied an order for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime under s. 462.37(1) or (2.01) can be made, but that property cannot be "made subject to an order", then the Court "may" order a fine in "an amount equal to the value of the property". Failure to pay the fine will result in a default judgement imposing a period of incarceration.
Forfeiture of Weapons or Firearms (s. 491) any Where there is finding of guilt for an offence where a "weapon, an imitation firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance was used in the commission of [the] offence and that thing has been seized and detained", or "that a person has committed an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance has been seized and detained, that the item be an enumerated weapon or related item be connected to the offence", then there will be a mandatory forfeiture order. However, under s. 491(2), if the lawful owner "was not a party to the offence" and the judge has "no reasonable grounds to believe that the thing would or might be used in the commission of an offence", then it should be returned to the lawful owner.
Forfeiture of Offence-related Property (s. 490.1) any Where there is a finding of guilt for an indictable offence, "any property is offence-related property" where (a) by means or in respect of which an indictable offence under this Act or the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act is committed, (b) that is used in any manner in connection with the commission of such an offence, or (c) that is intended to be used for committing such an offence". Such property is to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province. NB: does not apply to summary offences.

Record Suspensions and Pardons

Convictions under s. 145(4) or (5) are eligible for record suspensions pursuant to s. 3 and 4 of the Criminal Records Act after 5 years after the expiration of sentence for summary conviction offences and 10 years after the expiration of sentence for all other offences. The offender may not have the record suspended where the offender was (1) convicted of 3 or more offences with a maximum penalty of life, and (2) for each 3 offences he "was sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more".

History

See also: List of Criminal Code Amendments and Table of Concordance (Criminal Code)

See Also

References