R. v. Topping, 2021 BCPC 181

Citation: R. v. Topping 2021 BCPC 181 Date: 20210722 File Nos: 105990-C-3; 105990-4-C; 105935-1; 105935-2-A Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. HARLEY KENNETH TOPPING REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.L. DOREY (JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE) Counsel for the Crown: W. Wakabayashi Counsel for the Accused: J. Grenier Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Dates of Hearing: July 16, 2021 Date of Judgment: July 22, 2021

1. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Harley Topping is charged by Indictment on Court files #105990-C-3 and 105990-C-4 with two counts of break and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, and one count of robbery. These offences are alleged to have occurred in Surrey, BC and Maple Ridge, BC during the early morning hours of May 24, 2021. Mr. Topping is alleged to have committed these offences with his co-accused, Joshua Mathias. [ 2 ] Mr. Topping has been in custody since his arrest on May 24, 2021. He seeks his release on bail.

His proposed release plan involves residing at a residential drug recovery facility in a rural part of Chilliwack, BC on strict conditions that include a curfew and participation in drug treatment and religious instruction. [ 3 ] The Crown seeks Mr. Topping’s detention on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the nature and gravity of the charges and the offence circumstances, and in light of Mr. Topping’s criminal record and poor performance in the community on court conditions. 2.

OFFENCE CIRCUMSTANCES [ 4 ] The first offence on the Indictment is in respect of a break-in of a dwelling house located in the [omitted for publication] in Surrey, BC that occurred shortly after 2:00 am. Crown counsel describes the offence circumstances surrounding this charge as a home invasion. The victims of this offence are L.M. and B.G., and their one year-old son, C.G. The victims were not known to the accused. [ 5 ] The L.M. - B.G. family lived in a one level rancher house in a residential neighbourhood in Surrey. [ 6 ] L.M. was allegedly dragged out of his bed by two male suspects who broke into his home.

He was assaulted with what was described as a set of brass knuckles. During the course of the assault, L.M. was threatened by one of the suspects that he would be shot and stabbed. Photographs of L.M. taken from the hospital tendered at the hearing show that the victim sustained multiple lacerations, widespread abrasions and bruising to the back and side of his head, his neck and back. [ 7 ] L.M. was also pepper sprayed during the assault by one of the male suspects. He was blinded temporarily by the pepper spray.

B.G. and her baby sustained minor injuries from the effects of the pepper spray. [ 8 ] B.G. fled the bedroom and encountered the two male suspects ransacking the living room. One of the suspects threatened to stab B.G. if they did not find any money. The two male suspects removed a flat screen television from the living room and took B.G.’s cell phone.

They then exited the residence. [ 9 ] Video surveillance camera from the victim’s house captured the two male suspects fleeing the house on foot carrying a flat screen television, getting into a dark coloured Toyota Sienna mini-van, and then driving away shortly before the police arrived at 2:18 am. [ 10 ] The attending officers noted a strong odour of pepper spray throughout the L.M. - B.G. residence. [ 11 ] The second offence on the Indictment involves the charge of robbery.

The victim of this offence, R.S., was an on-duty taxi driver who picked up two males near the Surrey Central Sky Train station at approximately 5:00 am. R.S. drove the pair back to Maple Ridge and dropped them off at the intersection of 227 th Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. At approximately 5:30 am, R.S. was allegedly robbed after the pair pepper sprayed him as they exited the taxi. The two male suspects absconded with $100 cash and R.S.’s cell phone. [ 12 ] At 5:34 am, R.S. drove to the Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment to report the robbery.

The police detachment was less than 500 meters away from where R.S. was robbed by the two male suspects. [ 13 ] The third offence involves an alleged break-in of a shed belonging to a residential property in the [omitted for publication] in Maple Ridge. This residence was less than 900 metres and in walking distance from the location where R.S. was robbed. [ 14 ] At 5:35 am K.D., the home owner, was awoken by the sound of his dogs barking. He got up to investigate and saw two male suspects stealing various power tools, including a cordless chainsaw, from his shed.

K.D. then reported the break-in to the police at 5:39 am. [ 15 ] The police were dispatched to K.D.’s residence along with a police service dog. They arrived at the K.D. residence 5:50 am. The dog picked up a scent and began to track the two suspects. [ 16 ] At 6:23 am, a police officer conducting patrols in a marked police vehicle saw a Caucasian male dressed all in black walking southbound on 227 th Street, crossing 123 rd Avenue. The officer saw the male turn and run away. [ 17 ] The police service dog was then re-deployed to 227 th Street.

The dog picked up a scent which was tracked to the rear of a residence in the [omitted for publication], which was a short distance from the site of the break-in reported by K.D. [ 18 ] The police attended at the 227 th Street residence and spoke to the owner of the residence. The homeowner arranged to have Mr. Topping come out to the front entry to speak to the police. When Mr. Topping approached the front entry, he was observed by police dressed all in black, and was also seen carrying a cordless chainsaw, drill, and battery unit. [ 19 ] At 6:50 am, Mr. Topping was arrested. During the course of a search of Mr.

Topping incidental to arrest, the police located three cell phones in his possession. [ 20 ] Shortly after Mr. Topping’s arrest, B.G.’s cell phone was heard ringing and the display screen identified her as the caller.

[ 21 ] At 6:55 am, the owner of the 227 th Street residence was overheard by police arguing with a male occupant, later identified as the co-accused, Joshua Mathias. The owner was heard uttering, “this is bullshit you goofs brought this shit back to our place”. [ 22 ] Mr. Mathias was arrested by police on scene. [ 23 ] Mr. Topping appeared high on substances at the material time of these offences. He was assessed by police to be in need of medical assistance following his arrest and was taken to Surrey Memorial Hospital for treatment. 3.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING BAIL [ 24 ] I will now turn to the legal principles governing bail. [ 25 ] The Canadian bail system releases individuals who have been accused but not convicted of criminal conduct while they await trial. [ 26 ] A person charged with a crime is only alleged to have committed the offence. It remains an allegation unless, and until the Crown has satisfied an independent court of an accused person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the presumption of innocence. This presumption is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that is enshrined in s. 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( Charter ) . [ 27 ] Equally fundamental is a person’s right to liberty. This right is enshrined in s. 11(

e) of the Charter and provides that a person charged with an offence has the right “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause”. [ 28 ] In R. v. Myers , 2019 SCC 18 , at para. 1 , the Supreme Court of Canada expressed these two fundamental principles in this way at the outset of its reasons: The right to liberty and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system. In the pre-trial context, release — at the earliest opportunity and in the least onerous manner — is the default presumption in Canadian criminal law.

Pre-trial detention is the exception, not the rule. [ 29 ] Pre-trial detention is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty, and therefore it must be carefully justified. Thus, the corollary to these principles is the right not to be denied bail without just cause: R. v. Antic , 2017 SCC 509 , at para. 67 . [ 30 ] A bail-hearing judge must consider what level of supervision is necessary to address all the relevant bail risks, and an accused must be released on the least onerous of terms that will achieve that result.

It is only where those risks cannot be properly managed by some bail arrangement that the accused’s detention in custody is justified: Antic, at para. 44; Myers , at para. 56 . [ 31 ] These constitutional principles are underscored by the fact that the repute of our criminal justice system depends on “the confidence citizens have that persons charged with serious crimes will not be able to evade justice, harm others, or interfere with the administration of justice while awaiting trial”: R. v. St. Cloud , 2015 SCC 328 at para. 1 .

The risk that one or more of these events may “tarnish” the repute of our criminal justice system was recognized by Parliament in enacting the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds in s. 515(10) (

a) to (

c) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 ( Criminal Code ) to justify an accused person’s detention until trial: St. Cloud , at paras. 2-3. [ 32 ] The sum of these constitutional principles is that pre-trial release is the norm and detention, the exception. This is the effect of the presumption of innocence which I have borne in mind throughout my analysis of Mr. Topping’s bail application. [ 33 ] As set out above, the Crown seeks Mr. Topping’s detention on the secondary, and tertiary grounds. (

i) The Secondary Ground [ 34 ] Pursuant to s. 515(10) (

b) of the Criminal Code , detention can be justified on the secondary ground where it is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including any “substantial likelihood” that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice.

The main consideration of the court on a bail application involving the secondary ground is the protection and safety of the public, including any victim or witness. [ 35 ] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required to establish substantial likelihood, but a real likelihood must exist. [ 36 ] The test under the secondary ground is articulated by Mr. Justice Lamer (as he then was) in R . v. Morales , 1992 SCC 53, at para. 39 , as follows: … Bail is not denied for all individuals who pose a risk of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice while on bail.

Bail is denied only for those who pose a “substantial likelihood” of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice, and only where this “substantial likelihood” endangers “the protection or safety of the public.” Moreover, detention is justified only when it is “necessary” for public safety. It is not justified where detention would merely be convenient or advantageous.… [ 37 ] In R. v. Wilcox , 2005 BCSC 1785 , at para. 22 , Mr.

Justice Barrow added a further consideration in construing the risk spoken of in Morales and that is whether that risk can be “adequately addressed through the imposition of appropriate terms of release”. [ 38 ] In R. v . Abdel-Rahman , 2010 BCSC 189 , at para. 23 , Mr. Justice Halfyard summarizes the risk factors that should be considered when the secondary ground is engaged: a. First, that there is a risk that the accused will either commit an offence, or will interfere with the administration of justice, if he is

released; b. Second, that this risk is of such magnitude that it amounts to a “substantial likelihood;” c. Third, that the said risk would constitute a danger to public safety (in general, or to a specific victim or witness) if the accused is released; and d. Fourth, that the detention of the accused is “necessary,” because the identified danger to public safety cannot be prevented or reduced to an acceptable level by bail conditions (such as reporting to authorities, curfew, no-contact, mobility restrictions, sureties or cash bail). (ii) The Tertiary Ground [ 39 ] The tertiary ground found in s. 515(10) (

c) of the Criminal Code justifies the detention of an accused in custody pending trial, 515(10)… (

c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (

i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more. [ 40 ] The test which must be met under this ground is whether “detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice” and is a distinct ground for ordering the pre-trial detention of an accused: R. v.

St-Cloud , at para. 87. [ 41 ] St-Cloud makes it clear that the tertiary ground is not limited to cases involving exceptional or rare circumstances, or certain types of crimes such as murder. Further, St-Cloud holds that the tertiary ground “must not be interpreted narrowly (or applied sparingly)”: at paras. 54 and 87. [ 42 ] The overarching requirement for the tertiary ground is that the detention of an accused is justified to maintain confidence in the administration of justice: St-Cloud, at para. 54. [ 43 ] The four listed circumstances in s. 515(10)(

c) are the main factors to be balanced by the hearing judge, where the tertiary ground for detention is raised by the Crown. These circumstances are not exhaustive. [ 44 ] There are two important aspects to an inquiry on the tertiary ground. First, the hearing judge must not order detention automatically even where all four of the enumerated circumstances have been met.

The reason is because a hearing judge must consider the combined effect of all of the relevant circumstances to determine whether “ detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice”: St-Cloud , at paras. 68-69, and 87. [ 45 ] Second, in deciding the question of bail under this ground, a hearing judge “must adopt the perspective of the public”, meaning: …a reasonable person who is properly informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case.

However, this person is not a legal expert and is not able to appreciate the subtleties of the various defences that are available to the accused.

St-Cloud , at para. 87. [ 46 ] A reasonable person’s confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined not only where a court declines to order detention where detention is justified, but also if it orders detention where detention is not justified : St-Cloud, at para. 87. [ 47 ] Lastly, St-Cloud holds, at para. 88 that pre-trial detention will “usually” be ordered “ if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable”. 4. FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 48 ] I have kept these legal principles in mind as I consider Mr.

Topping’s personal circumstances, his criminal record, the offence circumstances, and his release plan. I have also reminded myself that Mr. Topping is presumed innocent of the charges, and that the facts alleged by the Crown have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage of the proceedings. (

i) Apparent Strength of the Crown’s Case [ 49 ] Although bail hearings by their very nature are

summary proceedings, I must nevertheless consider the nature and quality of the evidence in order to assess the strength and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case against an accused, particularly in relation to the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention. [ 50 ] Mr. Topping was identified by B.G. from a photo-pack line-up as one of the two males who broke into and ransacked her home, threatened her, and assaulted her spouse. B.G.’s cell phone was found by police in Mr.

Topping’s possession during the search incidental to his arrest less than four hours after the break-in of her home. [ 51 ] Although R.S. was unable to identify Mr. Topping as one of the two male passengers he picked up from the Surrey Central Sky

Train Station and drove to Maple Ridge, he had video “dash camera” footage of the two male passengers during the cab ride. A series of still screen shots of the two passengers were produced in evidence at the hearing. One of the passengers wore a surgical style mask that was pulled down below his chin. Based on my own observations, the image of the male shown in the first photograph from “camera 1”, bore a striking resemblance to Mr. Topping on the video feed in Court. [ 52 ] Video surveillance footage from L.M. - B.G. residence showed two males carrying a flat screen television exiting the home.

The clothing worn by the two suspects is consistent with the clothing worn by the two passengers in R.S.’s taxi cab. [ 53 ] R.S.’s cell phone was reported to police as stolen by the two male passengers. His cell phone was found in Mr. Topping’s possession by police less than 90 minutes after R.S. dropped off his two passengers on 227 th Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. [ 54 ] K.D. reported the break-in of his shed to police at 5:39 am. Mr. Topping was tracked to his residence by police on 227 th Street less than 45 minutes later.

The tools reported by K.D. as stolen during the break-in matched the description of the power tools (including a cordless chain saw) found in Mr. Topping’s possession at the time of his arrest at the 227 th Street residence. [ 55 ] Surveillance footage from K.D.’s home depicts two male suspects. One of the suspects was wearing similar dark clothing to that worn by Mr. Topping at the time of his arrest. [ 56 ] Finally, Mr. Mathias allegedly made an admission during his argument with the owner that linked the goods that had been stolen that morning to Mr. Topping. [ 57 ] The strength of the Crown’s case against Mr.

Topping on this evidence is, in my opinion, overwhelming. (ii) Personal Circumstances [ 58 ] Mr. Topping is 30 years of age. He had a difficult upbringing. Defence counsel acknowledges that Mr. Topping has a very serious addiction to heroin and fentanyl, and became addicted to drugs in his teens. Defence counsel further acknowledged that Mr. Topping was taken to hospital for a possible Fentanyl overdose after his arrest on May 24th. [ 59 ] Mr. Topping was married at a young age and is the father of two children, currently age 10 and 9 years.

Although his marriage ended in 2015, he remains close to his ex-wife, her mother, and his ex-wife’s new partner. [ 60 ] Defence counsel submits that Mr. Topping has a strong work ethic and enjoys labouring work but has not had a consistent work history due to his addictions. [ 61 ] Defence counsel reports that Mr. Topping got into a fight in 2019, was stabbed and sustained a head injury. Apparently Mr. Topping was hospitalized for two months and was in a coma as a result of his injuries from this fight. Counsel submits that there is a high likelihood that Mr.

Topping sustained a traumatic brain injury; however, no records or reports were produced at the hearing to verify the extent of his injuries. (iii) Prior Record [ 62 ] The nature of an accused’s prior convictions, the dates and gaps in relation to those convictions, their frequency, whether there are related offences, and breaches of release conditions and probation orders, are all relevant considerations in the overall risk analysis on a bail application. [ 63 ] Mr. Topping’s adult record began in 2009 at age 18 years when he pled guilty to mischief and possession of stolen property. Mr.

Topping had a gap in his record from 2010 to 2015 which coincided with the time he was married and raising young children. He stayed “clean” from drugs until his marriage fell apart and then he returned to a pattern of offending to support his drug habit. [ 64 ] He continued to accumulate a series of convictions from 2015 onwards. These included guilty pleas and sentencing in September 2017 for robbery, assaulting a peace officer, attempted theft of a motor vehicle, and breach of recognizance.

He received a global sentence of 540 days jail (with enhanced credit for time in detention), followed by 12 month probation, and a mandatory 10 year firearm prohibition. He was released from jail in 2018. [ 65 ] In 2020, Mr. Topping committed a crime spree, including two break and enter offences, he possessed a firearm, committed a theft under offence, and he twice breached his release orders. These charges were resolved by guilty pleas. Mr. Topping received a 250 day jail sentence followed by a term of 18 month probation. [ 66 ] Mr. Topping was released from jail on March 8, 2021.

He was serving his probation term in relation to his 2020 convictions at the time of these charges. [ 67 ] Mr. Topping was charged with theft under $5,000 on April 6, 2021 on Information #105935-1 involving a Wal-Mart retail store. He was further charged on May 14, 2021 on Information #105935-2A with breach of his release order for returning to the Wal-Mart store in breach of the “no go condition”. [ 68 ] Mr. Topping has a total of seven convictions for breach of probation and bail orders. He clearly has difficulty following court conditions. 5.

PROPOSED RELEASE PLAN [ 69 ] Judges must give careful consideration to release plans for individuals with substance-abuse and mental-health issues that involve “closely supervised treatment” as an alternative to detention. In Myers , the Supreme Court of Canada explains the rationale for this approach, at para. 67, as follows:

[67]… [J]udges and justices presiding over bail hearings should always give very careful consideration to release plans that involve supervised treatment for individuals with substance abuse and mental health issues. Release into treatment with appropriate conditions will often adequately address any risk raised under s. 515(10) , and such a strategy is a less onerous alternative than provincial remand. It may also substantially address the root causes of the accused person’s alleged criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of future criminal conduct.

In accordance with the principles articulated in Antic , we must not lose sight of the fact that pre-trial detention is a measure of last resort. [ 70 ] Mr. Topping has secured a placement with Joshua House, a licenced drug recovery facility, which operates treatment houses in a rural part of Chilliwack. Mr. Topping is on a methadone program and is motivated to work on his recovery. [ 71 ] Defence counsel submits that Mr. Topping’s treatment can be facilitated through the programming offered by Joshua House while he awaits trial on these charges.

There is a religious component to the programming through Joshua House. Defence counsel submits that Mr. Topping has spiritual roots and will benefit from the Christian instruction at Joshua House. [ 72 ] Defence counsel further submits that it is not unusual for individuals like Mr. Topping with substance addictions to relapse. She notes that Mr. Topping has done well in treatment in the past and that the release plan as proposed is the pathway for his recovery. If his relapses are prevented, then counsel submits that Mr.

Topping will not pose a risk to the community. [ 73 ] In short, the release plan as proposed is Mr. Topping’s best shot at recovery and that the rural location for Joshua House, and that the structured plan as proposed, mitigates the risk that Mr. Topping will re-offend. 6. DISCUSSION IN RELATION TO THE SECONDARY GROUND [ 74 ] While Mr.

Topping is presumed innocent of the substantive offences and the factual circumstances thus remain allegations until trial, his prior convictions for robbery, break and enter, breach of probation and bail orders, and his poor performance on the current probation order, including the short time frame in which he began to reoffend after his release on March 8, 2021, are collectively, strong indicators that Mr. Topping cannot be trusted to obey court conditions and not reoffend. Thus, on a careful consideration of the factors discussed by Mr.

Justice Halfyard in Abdel-Rahman , supra, at para. 23 , I am satisfied on the facts and circumstances before me that there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Topping will reoffend if released even on the strict conditions that have been proposed. It is for these reasons that I have concluded that the risk of Mr. Topping re-offending cannot be ameliorated by the proposed release plan especially when considering the offence circumstances on the charges before me. [ 75 ] Accordingly, I find that Mr.

Topping’s detention until trial is necessary, and I find the Crown has met its burden on the secondary ground. [ 76 ] If I am incorrect in my analysis and conclusion, I will now consider the tertiary ground for detention. 7. ANALYSIS OF THE TERTIARY GROUND [ 77 ] I will now address the four main circumstances set out in s. 515(10)(c). (

i) Apparent Strength of the Crown’s Case [ 78 ] For the reasons discussed above, I have concluded that the Crown has an overwhelming case against Mr.

Topping on these charges. (ii) Gravity of the Offences [ 79 ] For the purpose of the second circumstance in s. 515(1)(c), the objective gravity of the offences is assessed on the basis of the sentence in relation to other offences in the Criminal Code : St-Cloud, at para. 60 . [ 80 ] The offences of break and enter and committing an indictable offence (s. 348(1)(b) (Counts 1 and 3) and robbery (s. 344(1)(b)) (Count 2) carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment which signifies Parliament’s view that these are very serious offences. (iii) Circumstances Surrounding the Commission of the Offence [ 81 ] All of the alleged offences occurred on the same day, close in time to each other. [ 82 ] Two of the charges involved vulnerable victims – the occupants of a dwelling who were asleep in their beds in the middle of the night, and a taxi driver working alone on a graveyard shift. [ 83 ] Mr.

Topping had been released from serving a jail sentence less than three months prior to these charges. He was already facing a charge for breaching a release condition on the substantive theft under charge. (iv) Potential for a Lengthy Sentence if Convicted [ 84 ] The fourth circumstance set out in s. 515(10)(

c) is “the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment…” No crime is “exempt” from a possible application of the tertiary ground: St-Cloud, at para. 64. [ 85 ] This circumstance must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is assessed subjectively based on the known circumstances at the time of hearing, as well as the principles for sentencing, including the consideration of potential aggravating and mitigating factors.

The purpose of this exercise is for the hearing judge to determine whether an accused, if convicted, is potentially facing a lengthy prison sentence: St-Cloud , at para. 65. [ 86 ] I am especially mindful of s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code which mandates that the court shall consider as an aggravating

circumstance at sentencing the fact that an accused knew or was reckless as to whether the dwelling house was occupied, and used violence or threats of violence to the victims. If convicted on Count 1 on the C-3 and C-4 Indictments, there is a strong likelihood that this finding will be made in relation to the L.M. - B.G. family at Mr. Topping’s sentencing. [ 87 ] As stated above, I have also formed the view that R.S. was a vulnerable person given the nature of his employment and the time of day when the offence occurred. [ 88 ] The mitigating factors that I would consider are the possibility that Mr.

Topping suffered the residual sequelae of a traumatic brain injury (and medical evidence would need to be led to support this assertion) and that he was suffering from a drug addiction. [ 89 ] In light of the offence circumstances and the nature and gravity of the offences, Mr. Topping’s record, and on a consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the sentencing goals including those of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separating offenders from society, and rehabilitation, I have concluded that Mr.

Topping is likely to be sentenced to a lengthy Federal term of imprisonment if convicted, particularly on Counts 1 and 2 on the C-4 Indictment (in relation to the break-in at the L.M. - B.G. residence and the robbery of R.S.). I have also concluded that he is also likely to face a significant jail sentence if convicted on Count 3 on the C-4 Indictment (the break-in of the shed at the K.D. residence) in light of these factors. (

v) Other Relevant Circumstances [ 90 ] B.G. remains traumatized by the events that took place during the break-in of her home and the assault of her spouse. [ 91 ] L.M. sustained significant bodily injuries to his skull, neck and back as a result of the assault. His long term prognosis and recovery from these injuries are currently unknown. [ 92 ] The couple had a 1 year old child who was exposed to violence in the home. The long term impact of this trauma on the child is also not known. [ 93 ] Finally, I consider the time it will take for the substantive offences to be tried. This case is in its early stages.

Mr. Topping has not yet been arraigned. It may be several months before a trial is scheduled. [ 94 ] In all of these circumstances, I have concluded that a reasonable person who is properly informed about Charter values, including the principles of reasonable bail, would consider that Mr. Topping’s detention until trial is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, and that such confidence will be undermined if Mr. Topping is released on bail. [ 95 ] Accordingly, I conclude that Mr. Topping’s detention is justified under the tertiary ground. 8.

CONCLUSION [ 96 ] In light of the foregoing, Mr. Topping is detained until trial on Court files #105990-C-3 and #105990-C-4 on the secondary and tertiary grounds. Bail is revoked on Court files #105935-1 and #105935-2-A. [ 97 ] Pursuant to s. 515(12) of the Criminal Code , I order that Mr. Topping shall not have any contact directly or indirectly with Joshua Louis Mathias, or the complainants: L.M, B.G., C.G., R.S., and K.D. [ 98 ] Mr. Topping’s matters are adjourned to August 19, 2021 for a fix date appearance. The Honourable Judge D.L. Dorey Provincial Court of British Columbia