Bail (Canada)

Bail in Canada refers to the release (or detention) of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being tried in court or sentenced. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release on bail by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a person's appearance in court without the need for an arrest and release. The Canadian constitution guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Unlike some other jurisdictions, for example the United States and the Philippines there are no bondsmen or bail insurance policies in Canada.

The Canadian law of bail originates from the English legal tradition (see main article: Bail In England and Wales). The first major Canadian legislation with respect to bail was in the criminal legislation package of 1869; in that law, the federal government made bail discretionary for all offences. This provision was subsequently subject to much judicial interpretation, but the next major statutory change to bail in Canada was the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights which provided for a "right to reasonable bail" in s. 2(f). This provision was subsequently used by the courts to rule, for the first time, that the Extradition Act included a right to bail. In the early 1970s, the procedure for granting bail in Canada was completely revised by the Bail Reform Act. This act placed the onus for justifying an accused's detention on the prosecutor, gave police new powers to release persons charged with an offence prior to their coming before a justice, and created detailed procedures for bail reviews. In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined the right to bail in the Canadian constitution. Section 11(e) of the Charter stipulated that "any person charged with an offence has the right ... not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause". This was subsequently used by the Supreme Court of Canada to strike out bail provisions of the Criminal Code which the court held to be excessively vague in R. v. Morales.

...
Wikipedia