Case Analysis: Criminal Law Cases: R v. SJL, R v. Myers, R v. Antic

This document presents a case analysis of three key Canadian criminal law cases: R v. SJL, R v. Myers, and R v. Antic. R v. SJL addresses issues of youth justice, direct indictment, and preliminary investigations in drug trafficking cases. R v. Myers focuses on bail review processes under Section 525 of the Criminal Code, examining the two-tier procedure for determining the reasonableness of detention. Lastly, R v. Antic deals with bail conditions and the constitutional validity of geographical restrictions on bail, specifically concerning cash deposits and surety requirements. The analysis covers the facts, stages, and outcomes of each case, highlighting the legal principles and decisions made by the courts, including dissenting opinions. The cases cover topics like youth justice, firearms offences, bail conditions, and the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Running head : CASE ANALYSIS
CASE ANALYSIS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1CASE ANALYSIS
R vs. SJL, 2009 SCC 14,[2009] 1SCR 426
Case type
The type of the case is offence relating to drug trafficking and the case is tried in youth
court.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are two youth persons aged about 17 and 16 years were detained due
to the activities of drug trafficking by the criminal body. The youth persons were accused of the
offences that involve offences of the criminal organization. The Quebec court discharged the
motion of prosecution for initial investigation with regard to all accused that is young and adults
individuals. The crown after refusal favoured direct indictment as against the suspect in
pursuance to Section 577 of the Criminal Code1. The motion is granted by the Supreme Court
which is filed by the youth individuals to defeat the order of direct indictment. The appellate
court advocated the decision. Furthermore, as the preliminary investigation of the young persons
occurs in September 2007 the matters connecting to direct impeachment has become debatable
and should be addressed.
Stages of the case
The justice named Lebel, McLachlin, Deschamps, Charron and Rothstein favoured direct
indictment is reliable with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. the trial by the manner of summary
sentencing which does not engage preliminary investigation is the principle for youth individuals
1 Miladinovic, Zoran. "Youth court statistics in Canada, 2014/2015." Juristat: Canadian Centre
for Justice Statistics (2016): 3.

2CASE ANALYSIS
in pursuance to Section 142 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. nevertheless where the accusation
is of murder or in the case where the sentencing of adult individuals is possible the youth may
choose the method of trial. The selected method of the trial may involve preliminary
investigation if the request of the young persons or the crown one2. The Youth Criminal Justice
Act does not restrict the discretion of the Attorney general to favour the direct indictment as
under Section 577 of Criminal Code. Section 67(7) of the Youth Court Justice Act unlike Section
536(4) does not offer expressly that preliminary investigation should be apprehended unless
there is the preference of direct indictment. The probability of favouring direct indictment that
exists in the legislation of Canada in Section 536(4) that is effective in 2004. It is clearly stated
that the court has no discretionary power to reject to conduct the preliminary investigation if
requested by one. Thus the general reference as laid down Section 140 of the Youth Court
Justice Act is not overthrown by the particular reference to the alterations that are required by the
circumstances as envisaged under Section 67(9) of the said act.
There exist no statutory right as to the preliminary investigation or the impact of the
inquiry. The preliminary investigation is held as a screening method for making the
determination as to whether the crown has adequate evidence for the commission of the suspect
to trial. The dispensing with method does not result in the deficiency of primary justice as there
is the presumption of young persons an innocent and also preserves the liberty to make defence
and full answer. Nevertheless, it does not impair the right of the youth individuals to the
discovery which is distinctive from the liberty to the preliminary investigation. In addition to
2 Alam, Sarah. "Youth court statistics in Canada, 2013/2014." Juristat: Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics (2015): 1.

3CASE ANALYSIS
that, there is no specific importance connected in the Youth Criminal Justice Act to the liberty of
the youth individuals in respect of the preliminary investigation3. In general youth, individuals do
not have the liberty to preliminary investigation and in exceptional; a situation the liberty of the
individuals is conferred to the youth individuals the similar guidelines are implemented as it is
conferred to adult individuals and thus preliminary inquiry is regarded as non-compulsory and si
not obtainable if the crown favour direct indictment. The direct indictment is significant as
because the suspected persons are youth individuals and there will be the situation which will
progress the principles and objectives as entails in the Section 21,23,40 of the Youth Criminal
Justice Act.
Outcomes
Justice Abella and per fish dissenting. There is majority arrangement that youth
individuals must not be jointly tried with that of adults however not in the opinion that there is
the availability of direct indictment to Crown in the context of youth justice4. The youth person
under the act has the liberty to preliminary investigation when witnessing the outlook of adult
sentencing. There is an indicator that it is not intended by the parliament that preliminary
investigation for youth individuals who are witnessing adult sentencing be eradicated by direct
indictments.
3 Allen, Mary K., and Tamy Superle. "Youth crime in Canada, 2014." Juristat: Canadian Centre
for Justice Statistics (2016): 1.
4 Cotter, Adam, Jacob Greenland, and Maisie Karam. "Drug-related offences in Canada,
2013." Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2015): 1.

4CASE ANALYSIS
R vs. Myers, 2019 SCC 18
Type of the case
The case involved relating to firearms offences
Facts of the case
M was charged and arrested on January 2016 with the several offences relating to
firearms. He pursued the order of bail in regard of the accusation on November 9, 2016,
however, there is dismissal of application as the jury was not fulfilled that the release terms
would sufficiently discourse the risk as the accused would commit other crimes if he is
discharged or there may occur intervention with the management of justice. M then reconsider of
the order of detention under Section 520 of Criminal Code that was rejected on base that it is
viewed by the judge that there is no relevant progress that defends the discharge of M. the Crown
Counsel in march, 2017 questioned the defence as to whether it is desired by M to pursue bail
review of 90 days under Section 525 of Criminal Code5. The Supreme Court of British Columbia
heard the submissions that are made by the parties to the suit on the proper review approach
under Section 525 of the code. Thus it is concluded that the proper examination of hearing under
Section 525 engages two-tier procedure thus the suspect must convince the revising judge either
there is an unjustified delay in proceedings on the part of Crown or the path of time has material
consequences on the preliminary basis for the accused detention. Furthermore, if there is a
meeting of the threshold the determination is made by the judge as to whether the accused
detention remain reasonable within the scope of Section 515(10) of Criminal Code. M due to the
5 Myers, Nicole Marie. "Eroding the presumption of innocence: Pre-trial detention and the use of
conditional release on bail." British Journal of Criminology 57.3 (2017): 664-683.

5CASE ANALYSIS
test formulation made no suggestions and the order of detention was affirmed. Thus guilty is pled
by M on January 29, 2018, to relax charges and was condemned to imprisonment for 30 months.
As M is no longer in the custody of pre-trial his petitions to court is debatable but the guidelines
that are required for the proper approach to the review of detention hearing as under Section 525
of Criminal Code the discretionary power is exercised by the court to listen to the appeal on the
basis of merits.
Stages of the case
The court in the particular situation should implement the doctrines relating to
constitutional interpretation to make the determination of the proper approach to the review of
detention order as under Section 525 of the Criminal Code and to demonstrate the position of
review with the context of the pretrial process of custody in the country of Canada6. According to
the Canadian legislation, the pretrial discharge of suspected individuals is the doctrine of cardinal
and exception is detention. Though the practices are inconsistent broadly in terms when the
hearing of detention review as under Section 525 occurs as to whether it is mandatory what are
the determinants that should be considered and which examination is implemented.
Thus the resolution of hearing under Section 525 of the said act is to eradicate the
suspected individuals from suffering in custody at the stage of pretrial and also to guarantee for
speedy trial7. It is sought by the parliament to attain the purpose by exposing extensive detention
6 Maxwell, Ashley. "Adult criminal court statistics in Canada, 2013/2014." Juristat: Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics (2015): 1.
7 Salekin, Randall T., Ross D. Grimes, and Elizabeth W. Adams. "Clinical forensic evaluations
for juvenile transfer to adult criminal court." (2016).

6CASE ANALYSIS
in the process of pre-trial to oversight of judicial at particular time by giving opportunity for
having judger who consider that whether the ongoing detention of suspected persons is
reasonable and confer discretion to judge to expedite the individuals trial in detention at the
pretrial process. The liberty of not disallowing justified bail without having reasonable and just
cause as is enshrined under Section 11 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is
functioned as the chief organizing doctrine of part XVI of Criminal Code. The witnessing of
detention in the process of pre-trial may have severe detrimental consequences on the ability of
accused individuals to advance defence. The parliament intends to operate Section 525 as
protection8. The section implicates independent obligation on revising judge to contemplate that
whether the ongoing detention of a suspected individual is reasonable and also establish the
method that is discretionary is designated for the prevention of unjustified delay in addition to
that to expedite the individuals' trials in remand.
Outcomes
The proper approach to the review of detention as laid under Section 525 is follows.
Firstly it is the obligation of the jailer to implement for the hearing of detention review
instantaneously on the expiration of 90 days followed by a day the accused was primarily taken
in advance to justice under Section 503 of Criminal Code9. Furthermore, where the order of
intervening detention as under Section 520, 521, 524 of the Criminal Code that follows the
8 Hawkins, Derek. "Juvenile Court-Waiver to Adult Court." Wisconsin Law Journal (2017).
9 Ziedenberg, Jason. "You're an adult now: Youth in adult criminal justice systems." (2016).

7CASE ANALYSIS
preliminary attendance of suspected and before the conclusion of the period of 90 days10. Thus
Section 525 of the Criminal Code necessitates revising judge to deliver suspected individuals
with the cause for the continuance of detention is or is not reasonable. Thus the judge finally
should establish the application of discretion under Section 526 to provide instruction for
speeding the process of trial and all connected proceedings in case it is proper to do.
R vs. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017]1 S.C.R 509
Facts of the case
A was charged and arrested with several offences under firearms and drugs. He was
rejected discharged at the hearing of bail and also sought reconsideration of the order of
detention. The judge of reviewing the order of bail refuse to vacate the order and also
representing that he would be discharged A if there is the imposition of cash deposit and surety
as the conditions of discharge.
10 Wyant, Raymond E. Bail and remand in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney
Genera/Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016.

8CASE ANALYSIS
Stages of the case
Nevertheless, Section 515(2)(e) of Criminal Code allows the justice of judge or
peace to necessitate surety supervision and cash deposit if the suspected is an outside
province or not residing ordinarily within 200 km of the place of custody. As the resident
of Ontario is residing within 200 km of the place of detention A as did not fulfil the
requirements the subsequent application of bail review is initiated by A that questioning
the constitutional validity of Section 512(2). The judge who reviews the order of bail
establishes that the geographical restriction as laid down in Section 512(2) that eradicated
the suspected from allowing bail on the conditions that are considered to be proper.
Furthermore, the provisions that infringe the liberty not be rejected as justified bail
without having reasonable clause as envisaged under Section 11 of Charter. He struck
down and severed the geographical restriction in Section 515(2) and ordered the
discharge of A with the cash deposit of $100,000 and also surety. It is held that the appeal
must be allowed and reversing the announcement of constitutionality.
The liberty of not rejecting justified bail without having a due and just cause is a vital
factor for enlightening the structure of criminal justice. It reinforces the innocence presumption
at the pre-trial phase of the procedure of criminal trial and also protects the right of suspected
individuals. There are two aspects of the rights that are the individuals who are accused of an
offence has liberty not to reject bail without having a reasonable cause and have the liberty to
grant justified bail. The second characteristic is the liberty of having justified bail that si
connected to bail terms that involve the amount of economic component in addition to that the

9CASE ANALYSIS
limitations inflicted on the suspected for the period of release11. It safeguards the suspected
individuals from the terms and the methods of unreasonable release.
Outcomes
In the instant situation Section 512(2) of the Criminal Code does not put an impact on
denying the bail of A it was the application of bail by review judge of the provisions of bail. The
two errors that are committed by review judge of bail in designing the release order of A. Firstly
by necessitating cash deposit along with surety is the method of release that is unsuccessful to
cohere to ladder doctrine12. Thus Section 515(2) does not put impact n denial of bail of A and
therefore cannot sanction unjustified manner of release in the situation. Thus the question that
evolves is had the judge who reviews the order of bail implemented the provisions related to bail
properly then A could granted justified bail. According to the judge of review bail announced of
nonstatutory must be reversed and also the order of release must be replaced with release of cash
only under Section 515(2) on the similar terms which previously implicated as A had already
made cash deposit.
R vs. D.B.,[2008] 2 S.C.R. 3,2008 SCC 25
Type of case
The case is the offence of manslaughter conducted in adult court
11 Rogin, Jillian. "Gladue and Bail: The Pre-Trial Sentencing of Aboriginal People in
Canada." Can. B. Rev. 95 (2017): 325.
12

10CASE ANALYSIS
Facts of the case
B went to the native mall along with his friends. A fight succeeded with R of which B
knocked R on the ground and beat him and B fled. R was instantaneously taken to hospital.
Subsequently, B was informed through a call that R from injuries had died. He was detained and
was guilty of manslaughter. As the accused is 17 years his condemning took under the Youth
Criminal Justice Act. the youth sentencing is sought by B, however, the crown rejected the
application. B challenged the same under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms the legality of onus provisions in the regime of presumptive offences. The base of the
encounter was that the provisions implicate reverse onus as the obligations are on youth
individuals to encourage the court that he must not lose the advantage of the provisions of youth
sentencing somewhat than the crown to endeavour of proving that adult sentencing is reasonable.
It is allowed by the trial judge that the charter condemns B to maximum youth sentencing that
involves the custody which is intensive rehabilitative and the order of supervisions for the terms
of three years.
Stages of the case
The appellate court advanced the decisions. Justice Per Bastarache, Deschamps, Charon
and Rothstein dissenting in portion. The sentencing provisions of the presumptive offences in
the Youth Court Justice Act do not infringe the charter. The probability of adult sentencing
involves the liberty of young individuals in pursuance of Section 7 of the Charter13. The
13 Redlich, Allison D., Tina Zottoli, and Tarika Daftary-Kapur. "Juvenile justice and plea
bargaining." A System of Pleas: Social Sciences Contributions to the Real Legal System (2019):
107.

11CASE ANALYSIS
presumptions of adult sentencing according to Youth Court Justice Act and the publication of
violent crimes is in pursuance of the fundamental justice doctrine as because in no manner it
excludes the publication ban or youth sentencing where deemed proper by the justice court for
youth criminals14. Furthermore to concentrate on adult sentencing presumption and also the
publication that disregards the complete presumptive sentencing in addition to that the scheme of
publication that deliver wide safeguards for youth individuals who committed severe crimes and
also determine the assumption of compact moral blameworthiness that is defined properly15.
Outcomes
The sentencing provisions and publication do not establish reverse onus that violates the
fundamental justice principles that the crown endure the obligation of evidencing aggravating
circumstances of sentencing. Thus providing the chance to youth individuals particularly where
sentencing judge necessitate to speedy the youths from taking benefits of opportunities that
characterize the approach of parliament to stabilize the young individuals status with the
requirement t safe society from severe crime perpetrators.
14 Brook, Carol A., et al. "A comparative look at plea bargaining in Australia, Canada, England,
New Zealand, and the United States." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (2015): 1147.
15 Beaupré, Pascale. "Cases in adult criminal courts involving intimate partner
violence." Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2015): 1.