Fail to Comply with Bail Lawyer in Toronto
A bail breach is one of the most frequently laid charges in the Greater Toronto Area, and it can arise from something as ordinary as missing a curfew, contacting someone a release order prohibits, failing to report as required, or not showing up to court. These are known as administration of justice offences, because they concern a person’s conduct while already in the court system rather than the original allegation. Anyone accused of a fail to comply with bail charge in Toronto or the surrounding region should understand that a breach is treated as a fresh criminal charge in its own right, and that what the Crown must prove is narrower than many people expect.
What the Offence Involves
Failing to comply with a release order is an offence under section 145 of the Criminal Code. To convict, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was bound by a condition or required to attend court, that they failed to do so, and that they did so without lawful excuse. Establishing the bare fact of a breach, though, is not enough on its own.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that this offence requires subjective fault. The Crown must prove that the accused knew of the conditions, or was wilfully blind to them, and then either knowingly failed to comply or was reckless, meaning they were aware of a substantial and unjustified risk that their conduct would breach a condition and went ahead anyway. It is not enough to show that a reasonable person in the same position would have complied; the focus is on what this accused actually knew and intended. The same decision stressed that bail conditions are meant to be minimal, necessary, reasonable, and capable of being obeyed, not imposed by rote, so a condition a person could not realistically meet, or that was never clearly communicated, can be central to whether a breach was truly knowing or reckless.
Penalties and Consequences
Failing to comply is a hybrid offence. On indictment, the maximum is two years in prison, and on summary conviction the maximum is two years less a day. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. The more pressing consequences, however, are often immediate and practical:
- The original charge still proceeds, so the person faces two matters instead of one.
- A breach can lead to the existing bail being revoked and the person held in custody.
- A record of breaches makes it harder to obtain bail in the future.
- A conviction creates a criminal record, with the usual effects on employment, travel, and immigration.
This is part of why bail breaches have drawn criticism for pulling people into a cycle of charges and custody, sometimes for conduct that harmed no one. A person can even be acquitted of the charge that put them on bail and still be convicted, or held in custody, for a breach that happened while they were awaiting trial.
How These Charges Are Defended
Because the offence requires subjective fault, many breach charges are more defensible than they first appear. The central questions are whether the accused genuinely knew of the condition and whether the failure to comply was knowing or reckless, rather than accidental or beyond their control. A lawful excuse can answer the charge, and so can circumstances that show the breach was not knowing or reckless, such as a condition that was misunderstood, a situation the accused could not control, or a genuine inability to comply. The case that settled the law on this point involved a person who could not hear officers at his door, which shows how ordinary circumstances can negate the required fault.
There is also a route that can keep a breach out of the criminal stream entirely. For administrative breaches that did not cause harm to a victim, a judicial referral hearing can deal with the matter without a prosecution, focusing on whether the conditions themselves should be adjusted, and unworkable conditions can sometimes be varied. A lawyer reviewing a breach charge will look at whether the accused actually knew of the condition, whether any failure was knowing or reckless, whether a lawful excuse applies, and whether the condition was reasonable and clearly communicated in the first place.
A bail breach can add a second charge to a case that has not yet been decided, and it can cost a person their liberty before any finding of guilt on the original allegation. Anyone charged with failing to comply with bail in Toronto or the GTA should speak with a criminal defence lawyer promptly, since a breach affects both the new charge and the case underneath it. Acting early allows the conditions and the alleged breach to be reviewed, the right defence or resolution to be identified, and any unworkable conditions to be addressed before they cause further problems.
Legislation and Jurisprudence
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14.
Leave a Comment