R. v. Baker, 2019 NLSC 11

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Baker , 2019 NLSC 11 Date : January 24, 2019 Docket : 201806G0163 Her Majesty The Queen v. Winston Baker Before: Justice Garrett A. Handrigan Place of Hearing: Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: January 17, 2019

Summary: Winston Baker is charged with 50 offences, 49 under various sections of the Criminal Code and 1 under a provincial statute. After a bail hearing, a Provincial Court Judge remanded Mr. Baker in custody pending his trial. Mr. Baker applied to review the decision to remand him. The Court dismissed Mr. Baker’s application. It found that the Provincial Court Judge neither erred in law nor was his decision “clearly inappropriate”. The Provincial Court Judge weighed all relevant factors properly and did not give undue or insufficient weight to one or another of them.

Moreover, even with the updated and new evidence that Mr. Baker provided to the reviewing Court, there are no material and relevant changes in the circumstances of the case that justify varying the Provincial Court Judge’s decision. Appearances:

Alison J. Manning Appearing on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen Jeffrey H. Slade Appearing on behalf of Winston Baker Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 (S.C.C.); R. v. Palmer, (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 (SCC). STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; Mental Health Care and Treatment Act, S.N.L. 2006 c. M-9.1. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Handrigan, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Winston Ernest Baker is charged with 49 offences under various sections of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and 1wildlife offence under a provincial statute.

The criminal offences include: possessing stolen goods; trafficking in stolen goods;possessing stolen firearms; trafficking in stolen firearms; storing firearms carelessly; committing mischief; breaching a recognizance;removing a VIN from a motor vehicle; and breaking and entering. [2] Mr. Baker elected to be tried by Judge alone in this Court when he appeared in the Provincial Court on May 4, 2018. AProvincial Court Judge denied Mr. Baker bail. Mr. Baker waived a preliminary inquiry into the Criminal Code charges on August 21,2018. He appeared here on October 11, 2018 and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Mr.

Baker's trial is set for two weeks, starting on June10, 2019. Mr. Baker applied on December 4, 2018 under section 520 (2) of the Criminal Code for this Court to review his detention. Iheard Mr. Baker's application on January 17, 2019 and reserved my ruling until now. THE ISSUE [3] Should Mr. Baker be released from custody? THE LAW Statute - Criminal Code - Bail Review [4] Section 520 (7) of the Criminal Code sets the procedure a reviewing Court must follow on hearing an application from anaccused to review his detention under section 520 (2).

It allows the reviewing Judge to consider the transcript and exhibits, if any, fromthe previous hearing and “such additional evidence or exhibits as may be tendered by the accused or the prosecutor”. [5] The reviewing Judge has two options when disposing of the application: he may “dismiss the application”; or “if accusedshows cause, allow the application, vacate the order previously made by the justice and make any other order provided for in

section 515that he considers is warranted”. I note for bail purposes that “judge” means a “judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction” and“justice” (generally throughout the Criminal Code, not just for bail purposes) means a “justice of the peace or a provincial courtjudge…”. [6] Under

section 515 a Provincial Court Judge may order that an accused be detained or released on his undertaking with orwithout conditions.

Section 515 (10) sets out three grounds, any one of which may justify detaining the accused: • The "primary" ground: 515 (10)(a), "where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court…to be dealt withaccording to law"; • The "secondary" ground: 515 (10)(b), "where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public…having regardto all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence orinterfere with the administration of justice"; and • The "tertiary" ground: 515 (10)(c), "if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, havingregard 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 thatinvolves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more". Case Law - Bail Review [7] The Supreme Court of Canada revisited the

interpretation of section 515 (10)(

c) recently in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27(S.C.C.); and Wagner, J., with six other justices concurring, set out "...the essential principles that must guide justices in applying s. 515(10)(c)": • Section 515 (10)(

c) Criminal Code does not create a residual ground for detention that applies only where the first two grounds fordetention ((

a) and (b)) are not satisfied. It is a distinct ground that itself provides a basis for ordering the pre-trial detention of anaccused; • Section 515 (10)(

c) Criminal Code must not be interpreted narrowly (or applied sparingly) and should not be applied only in rarecases or exceptional circumstances or only to certain types of crimes; • The four circumstances listed in section 515 (10)(

c) Criminal Code are not exhaustive; • A Court must not order detention automatically even where the four listed circumstances support such a result; • The Court must instead consider all the circumstances of each case, paying particular attention to the four listed circumstances; • The question whether a crime is "unexplained" or "unexplainable" should not guide the analysis; • No single circumstance determines: The justice must consider the combined effect of all the circumstances of each case todetermine whether detention is justified; • This involves balancing all the relevant circumstances.

At the end of this balancing exercise, the ultimate question for the court iswhether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. This is the test to be met under section 515 (10)(c); • To answer this question, the Court must adopt the perspective of a reasonable person who is properly informed about thephilosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case.

However, this person is not a legalexpert and is not able to appreciate the subtleties of the various defences that are available to the accused; and • This reasonable person's confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined either if a Court declines to order detentionwhere detention is justified or if it orders detention where detention is not justified. (St-Cloud, para. 87). [8] In St-Cloud, Wagner, J. also noted the limitations of the reviewing Judge’s jurisdiction under sections 520 and 521 of theCriminal Code: “…[T]hese sections do not confer on the reviewing Judge an open-ended power to review the initial order respecting thedetention or release of the accused.

The reviewing Judge must therefore determine whether it is appropriate to exercise this power ofreview” (St-Cloud, para. 120). [9] Then he stated when it would be appropriate for the reviewing Judge to intervene: • If the Provincial Court Judge erred in law; or • If the impugned decision is “clearly inappropriate”, because the Provincial Court Judge “gave excessive weight to one relevantfactor or insufficient weight to another”. [10] It would not be appropriate for the reviewing Judge to intervene “simply because he or she would have weighed the factorsdifferently”.

The reviewing Judge is not limited to the factors “…expressly specified in section 515 (10)(

c) Criminal Code…” but mayreceive new evidence from the accused or the prosecutor; and can “…vary the initial decision if that evidence shows a material andrelevant change in the circumstances of the case” (St-Cloud, para. 121). [11] However, Wagner, J. noted that the reviewing Judge does not have an unfettered discretion to receive new evidence.

Thereviewing Judge’s discretion is similar to an appellate court’s discretion to receive new evidence on appeal; and he referred to R. v.Palmer, (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 (SCC) and the four conditions the Supreme Court said that the person tendering“new evidence” must meet: 1. The evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial. 2. The evidence must bear upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial. 3. The evidence must be reasonably capable of belief, and 4.

If believed, the evidence could reasonably be, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, expected to have affected theresult. (St-Cloud, para. 128). [12] This is the law I will apply to Mr. Baker’s bail review application. I turn now to analyze the issue I stated above, starting withthe background to it.

Analysis Background [ 13 ] Winston Ernest Baker was born June 10, 1978 and is 40 years old. Mr. Baker lives in Grand Bank. He is unmarried but says he lived with Royseana House for about 20 years before they broke up in the spring of 2017. He says he began living with Lindsay Matterface about then, but they had just broken up when he was charged with these offences. Mr. Baker has several children, including a 14-year-old son and 2 daughters from whom he is estranged. In fact, Mr. Baker was bound by a recognizance relating to Ms.

House and one of their daughters when he was arrested for these offences. [ 14 ] The recognizance, also known as a “peace bond”, contained the statutory condition that he “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and the further condition that he have “no contact or communication directly or otherwise with [his daughter] Savannah Baker and [his former common-law partner] Royseana House”. Mr.

Baker signed the recognizance on November 15, 2017 and it bound him for 12 months from that date. [ 15 ] On Thursday, March 15, 2018, Lindsay Matterface called the RCMP and asked them to come to her home at 22 College Street, Grand Bank. Ms. Matterface said she and Mr. Baker, who she referred to as her “boyfriend”, had argued and “he kicked her out of the house”. She also told the police that she tried to leave in her car, but Mr. Baker disabled the car by drilling a hole in the gas tank so the gas would drain from it. [ 16 ] The police came to the residence where they found Ms. Matterface locked in her car. Mr.

Baker had been in the area before the police got there, walking back and forth between the house and a shed behind it but left on an all-terrain vehicle as they arrived. Ms. Matterface told the police that she was concerned for her safety both because Mr. Baker was acting erratically, and because he kept firearms in both the shed and the house. [ 17 ] Eventually Mr. Baker returned to the property on foot. Cst. Hiscock of the RCMP produced his badge for Mr. Baker and identified himself. Mr. Baker was agitated and claimed that Ms. Matterface and his former wife were trying to kill him.

He said he was having a difficult time and he wanted to kill himself. Ms. Matterface told the police that Mr. Baker put a loaded gun in his mouth recently and said he was going to kill himself. Cst. Hiscock detained Mr. Baker under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act , S.N.L. 2006 c. M-9.1 . [ 18 ] Minutes after Cst. Hiscock detained Mr. Baker, Cst. Strickland who was also at the house, arrested Mr. Baker for damaging Ms. Matterface’s car. The police then took Mr. Baker to the local hospital where medical staff screened him for mental health issues and released him to the police. The police informed Mr.

Baker that he could speak to counsel, but he declined. [ 19 ] Meanwhile, Ms. Matterface allowed the police to enter the residence at 22 College Street so they could recover the guns, with which Mr. Baker threatened to kill himself. In a cursory search of the residence for firearms and ammunition, Cpl. McGrath and Cst. McLaughlin, also of the RCMP, located a camouflage shotgun in the master bedroom and an unsecured 303 caliber rifle hung on the wall.

The RCMP inspected the premises further and found loose ammunition, ammunition in boxes, rifle bolts and a loaded rifle magazine; as well as two firearms in the attic, to which Ms. Matterface had directed them. [ 20 ] While the police searched for firearms, Cpl. McGrath noted numerous items about the residence that might have been taken from recreational cabins that had been broken into recently, and about which the police had received various complaints. Mr. Baker was present while the police walked through. Cst. Greening, also of the RCMP, arrested Mr.

Baker for possessing stolen goods, for breaching a peace bond, for storing firearms and ammunition unsafely and for mischief. Cst. Greening advised Mr. Baker of his Charter rights and asked him if he wanted to speak to a lawyer. [ 21 ] Mr. Baker said he understood his rights but again declined to contact counsel. Mr. Baker spoke about the goods that the police had located and which the police believed were stolen. He said, “I did it all. I did everything you say I did”. The police left the residence then but secured it while they applied for a warrant to continue their search.

They obtained a search warrant the same day and went back to 22 College Street to search the residence and outbuildings more closely. [ 22 ] The police recovered numerous items they believed had been stolen in five separate break-ins at cabins in the area, as well as a Honda ATV from which the serial number had been removed. Over the next two weeks, cabin owners attended the RCMP detachment in Marystown and identified goods that were missing from their cabins after they were broken into.

On March 19, 2018, the police obtained a second warrant to search the house and outbuilding at 22 College Street, Grand Bank, as well as vacant land that Mr. Baker owns outside of Grand Bank. [ 23 ] On March 19, 2018, Mr. Baker spoke to counsel for the first time. After his conversation, Mr. Baker refused to speak to the police about his involvement in any criminal activities relating to the property the police recovered in their searches. The police brought Mr. Baker before the Provincial Court on March 20, 2018 and he was remanded in custody until April 4, 2018 for a psychological assessment. Cst.

Greening interviewed Mr. Baker on April 29, 2018 and obtained an audiotaped statement from Mr. Baker. Essentially, Mr. Baker acknowledged that he sold some stolen firearms, but otherwise denied he had any involvement with the stolen goods. [ 24 ] Dr. Jasbar Gill, M.D. is a forensic psychiatrist with Eastern Health at the Waterford Hospital in St. John’s. Dr. Gill noted that Mr. Baker was admitted to the Hospital on March 21, 2018 and assessed as to his fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility for the many charges he faces. Dr.

Gill filed a report with the Provincial Court at Grand Bank on April 27, 2018 in which he made these observations about Mr. Baker: • He is, “[f]rom a psychiatric perspective…fit to stand trial”; • Neither physical examination nor laboratory investigations “…reveal any…physical illness that would make understandable the

behaviours leading to this man’s current charges…”; • He “…did not meet the criteria for certification as per the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act at the time of his discharge…”; • He “…appears to suffer from Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia”; with “…a history of antisocial behaviours and some anger management issues”; • He “…does not have available to him a defence of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder…”; and • He “…should continue treatment with…[Paxil]…”; take “…benzodiazepines only as prescribed and should follow the guidance of his treating physician in tapering his dose and discontinuing the medication…to avoid developing a dependency”; and, as well, receive “…counseling…related to anxiety, substance abuse, and relationship issues”. [ 25 ] Mr.

Baker returned to the Provincial Court in Grand Bank on April 30, 2018. A Provincial Court Judge remanded Mr. Baker in custody after a bail hearing in Grand Bank on May 4, 2018. At the hearing, the Judge heard from Mr. Baker and a William Hanlon who lives in St. John’s. Mr. Hanlon has been living in a common-law relationship with Pam Baker, Winston Baker’s sister, for 23 years. Mr. Hanlon and Ms. Baker have a 12-year old daughter who lives with them. Mr. Hanlon is self-employed in a small engine repair business called “On the Spot Mobile” and Ms.

Baker works as a paralegal for the Canada Revenue Agency. [ 26 ] Mr. Hanlon told the Court that Mr. Baker could live with them if he was released from custody, pending trial. Mr. Hanlon described Mr. Baker as a “fantastic mechanic” and offered to hire Mr. Baker to work in his business. He noted that Mr. Baker had “… actually worked with me on many occasions…and I could actually use his services these days…”. Mr. Hanlon also offered to “…act as a surety [for Mr. Baker] in the amount of 2500 dollars”. [ 27 ] Mr. Baker told the Judge that his plan was to move to St.

John’s to live with his sister and her partner and to work for Mr. Hanlon. He was aware that he would have to comply with conditions if he was released on bail and he confirmed that he would comply with them; whether to have no contact with Ms. Matterface, not to possess or have any contact with firearms, or other reasonable limitations. [ 28 ] Mr. Baker did not persuade the Provincial Court Judge to release him on bail. The Judge stated these reasons for rejecting Mr. Baker’s request for bail: • William Hanlon is not a suitable surety, because: he did not know how many offences Mr.

Baker is charged with; he did not know that Mr. Baker had been using illegal drugs heavily; and he was ambivalent about how he would respond if Mr. Baker breached the conditions of his release; • Mr. Baker is at a high risk of committing other offences, particularly because of his illegal drug use and his prior criminal record, which is closely related to his present charges and also includes four breaches of probation; and • A reasonable person’s confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined after he is informed of the following, if Mr. Baker is granted bail: Mr.

Baker was on a recognizance when the police arrested him for these offences; Mr. Baker threatens to kill himself when he is confronted by authorities; Mr. Baker keeps unsecured firearms and ammunition in his residence; Mr. Baker is charged with serious offences which will likely result in lengthy periods of incarceration if he is convicted of them; and the evidence against Mr. Baker on many of the charges is compelling. [ 29 ] This is the background to Mr. Baker’s application. I turn now to discuss the issue I stated earlier in these reasons against this background.

Discussion The Provincial Court Judge’s Ruling [ 30 ] Mr. Baker applied to this Court under section 520 (2) of the Criminal Code to review the Provincial Court Judge’s decision to remand him in custody on May 4, 2018. Mr. Baker must show on a balance of probabilities either that the Provincial Court Judge erred in law or that his decision to remand Mr. Baker is clearly inappropriate, because he gave excessive weight to one relevant factor or insufficient weight to another.

I may not intervene simply because I might have weighed the factors differently. [ 31 ] While I may receive new evidence from the accused or the prosecutor on the review application and I may also vary the initial decision if that evidence shows a material and relevant change in the circumstances of the case, I must be cautious when I receive that evidence.

In particular, I must ensure that the evidence could not have been adduced at the bail hearing; that the evidence is relevant to a decisive issue; that the evidence is credible; and that the evidence is reasonably capable of affecting the outcome of the bail hearing. [ 32 ] From reviewing the Provincial Court Judge’s refusal to grant Mr. Baker bail and even considering the new evidence that Mr.

Baker tendered before me, I find that Mr. Baker has not shown on a balance of probabilities that his refusal to grant bail should be set aside. Let me explain. [ 33 ] The Provincial Court Judge referred to a bail hearing as a “risk assessment” in which the Court considers the three grounds set out in section 515 (10) of the Criminal Code . He concluded correctly that there is no reason to detain Mr. Baker under the primary ground. Quite simply, as the Judge noted, and I agree, there is no reasonable likelihood Mr. Baker will flee this jurisdiction if he is released on bail. Mr.

Baker appears to be firmly rooted in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has lived here most of his life, he owns a home in Grand Bank, and he has family in the province. Mr. Baker worked in the North West Territories sometime in the last several years but there is no indication that he formed alliances there that he might resort to if he gets bail. Mr. Baker also confirmed that he did not work elsewhere outside the province. [ 34 ] As to the secondary ground, which the Provincial Court Judge described as “the risk of the commission of further offences”, he said that was “more problematic” for Mr. Baker. He noted Mr.

Baker’s long history of drug use and his criminal antecedents. As to the former, the Provincial Court Judge said that Mr. Baker has been using prescription drugs and cannabis for years. Mr. Baker admitted at the bail hearing that he used as much as an ounce of cannabis a day, at a daily cost of $80 or $2,400 a month. Since Mr. Baker was unemployed and his only income was $2,000 a month from EI, the money for cannabis, as the Provincial Court Judge said, “has to come from somewhere”. [ 35 ] As to Mr. Baker’s “criminal antecedents” the Provincial Court Judge noted that Mr.

Baker has three prior convictions for break and enter, convictions for possessing a stolen weapon, possessing an unregistered restricted weapon, possessing stolen goods and four convictions for breach of probation. Taken together, these factors indicate that “Mr. Baker…[is] at a high risk of the commission of further offences if he is released from custody…”. The Judge also noted that Mr. Baker’s “bail plan fails to adequately address that risk to the extent that judicial interim release should be denied on the secondary ground”. [ 36 ] The plan that Mr.

Baker put forward at his bail hearing in the Provincial Court is essentially the same one as he put before me at the review hearing: He will live with his sister, Pam Baker and her common-law partner, William Hanlon in their residence at 1388 Blackhead Road, St. John’s. Mr. Hanlon and Ms. Baker own their own home and say they have empty bedrooms in the main unit as well as a separate, “in-law” apartment that is available for Mr. Baker. [ 37 ] Mr. Hanlon testified by telephone at the bail hearing.

He told the Provincial Court that he is a self-employed, small engine repairman in a business called “On the Spot Mobile”. Mr. Hanlon says he is busy this time of the year repairing snow blowers and the like and could use Mr. Baker’s help. Moreover, Mr. Hanlon says that Mr. Baker is a skilled mechanic (as well as an accomplished guitarist) and worked for him in the past. Mr. Hanlon also told the Court that he would act as a surety for Mr. Baker and he would promise to pay $2,500 if Mr.

Baker breached his release conditions. [ 38 ] As to that plan, the Provincial Court Judge said that it gave him no reassurance that Mr. Baker would not commit other offences if he released him on bail. First, he found that Mr. Hanlon “was not prepared to carry out the duties of a surety” because Mr. Hanlon saw his responsibility as surety, simply as to “give…[Mr. Baker] a safe and healthy environment”. As well, Mr. Hanlon was non-committal about what he would do if Mr. Baker breached the conditions on which he was released. This is what the Provincial Court Judge said about Mr.

Hanlon’s ambivalence: “When he was specifically asked about what he might do if the accused breached his curfew, he said it would depend on how serious the breach was”. Finally, the Judge noted that Mr. Hanlon seemed not to know that Mr. Baker used illegal drugs or that he was “…facing more than 40 Criminal Code offences”. [ 39 ] If anything, the Provincial Court Judge was even more concerned about the impact releasing Mr. Baker might have on the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

This, of course, is the “tertiary ground” on which a Court may rely to detain an accused pending trial; and it appears in section 515 (10) (

c) of the Criminal Code . [ 40 ] The Provincial Court Judge considered all four factors that appear in section 515 (10) (

c) and concluded that a “reasonable person would have his or her confidence in the administration of justice undermined if…[Mr. Baker] were released before his trial”. Let me summarize his assessment of each of the factors: • The apparent strength of the prosecution case: The Crown has eyewitness evidence to support the alleged mischief charge; the stolen goods that are the subject of the possession charges were found in Mr. Baker’s home; and a witness gave a statement to the police that he bought a stolen gun from Mr. Baker.

Thus, the probability of conviction for these offences is high. • The objective gravity of the offences: The offences are serious, particularly those related to the stolen firearms and especially so for Mr. Baker because of his criminal record. • The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences: Mr.

Baker was on an undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour since November 2017, he was acting irrationally, he had possession of unsecured firearms and ammunition and had a large cache of goods in his house that appear to have been taken from recreational cottages. • The accused is potentially liable to lengthy terms of imprisonment: First, Mr.

Baker received jail sentences previously for break and entry, possessing stolen weapons, possessing unregistered restricted weapons, possessing stolen goods and breaching probation orders and one of the current offences is punishable with a minimum sentence of three years in prison. [ 41 ] Overall, I find that the Provincial Court Judge exercised his discretion appropriately when he remanded Mr. Baker in custody to await his trial on these charges. From the reasons he provided both orally on May 4, 2018 and subsequently in writing, it is apparent that he carefully considered the seriousness of the offences Mr.

Baker is charged with, the strong evidence the Crown will bring against Mr. Baker, Mr. Baker’s irrational behaviour and the risk he presents of committing other offences. I will not disturb his decision to remand Mr. Baker in custody and say that I would have done the same in these circumstances. Reviewing the Provincial Court Judge’s Ruling

[ 42 ] I heard Mr. Baker’s application to review the Provincial Court Judge’s ruling on January 17, 2019. Mr. Baker testified himself and called two witnesses, Mr. Hanlon, who testified by telephone at the bail hearing and Pam Baker, Mr. Baker’s sister and Mr. Hanlon’s common-law partner. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hanlon testified at Mr. Baker’s bail hearing, his sister, Ms. Baker did not. [ 43 ] The Crown did not object to Ms. Baker’s testimony, but Crown counsel noted that there is no apparent reason why Ms. Baker did not testify previously. I agree that Ms. Baker might have testified before, but Ms.

Baker’s testimony and the updated evidence I received from Mr. Baker and Mr. Hanlon on the bail review changes nothing for Mr. Baker. Put another way, and to paraphrase Wagner, J.’s statement about “new evidence” in St-Cloud , the new evidence that I heard on the bail review does not show that there has been a material and relevant change in Mr. Baker’s circumstances. Let me explain. [ 44 ] Mr.

Baker offered the same plan for his release when he testified before me as he proposed to the Provincial Court Judge when he testified at his bail hearing: He will live with his sister, Pam Baker, and her partner, William Hanlon, at their home in St. John’s. Mr. Baker will work for Mr. Hanlon in his small engine repair business and will avail of much-needed counseling and support services that are available in the St. John’s region. [ 45 ] William Hanlon and Pam Baker say that they would welcome Mr. Baker into their home and also agree to act as his sureties. They both claim they will report Mr.

Baker to the police if he breaches any of the conditions on which he is released. Ms. Baker, in particular, says she knows her brother has many challenges. She says he has problems with substance abuse, he suffers from anxiety and depression and he will require counseling and therapy. Ms. Baker says she will try to find help for Mr. Baker and ensure that he attends appointments with the professionals who will provide that help. [ 46 ] As far as being a surety, Ms. Baker says she can provide a cash deposit of $1,500 for Mr. Baker and will promise to pay the difference up to $5,000, if necessary.

She says she does not have the extra $3,500 and would have to borrow it but is prepared to do that, too. Ms. Baker acknowledges that she may lose the money she pledges for her brother, if he breaches his bail conditions. William Hanlon will also act as surety for Mr. Baker. Mr. Hanlon says he will make a promise to pay up to $2,500 but does not have cash available to pay down now. He also acknowledges that he may lose the money if Mr. Baker does not comply with his bail conditions. [ 47 ] While Mr. Hanlon and Ms. Baker seem to have the best of intentions for Mr.

Baker, their ability to provide the supervision that Mr. Baker requires is limited. Ms. Baker works full-time for the Canada Revenue Agency. She appears to have some flexibility in scheduling her hours of work, but she will be away from her home on a full-time basis regardless of when she schedules them. She also acknowledges that the next three to four months are the “busy season” at the Canada Revenue Agency, as taxpayers file their 2018 tax returns. [ 48 ] As for Mr. Hanlon, he says he is especially busy this time of year with snow machine repairs. Mr.

Hanlon operates a mobile service and says he does most of his work on site, at his customers’ places of business. His hours of work are generally 9:00 am to 5:00 pm with occasional weekend work. Mr. Hanlon says he has taken on mostly commercial work in the last couple of years, including clients who operate outside the St. John’s region. He travels to those locations for three to four days, every three months, on average. He noted that he spent four days on the road just before Christmas 2018. [ 49 ] There is an obvious consequence for Mr.

Baker from his proposed sureties’ work commitments: He will spend extended periods unsupervised at their home. Dr. Gill found that Mr. Baker was fit to stand trial and not suffering from a mental disorder that would allow him to claim the defence of not criminally responsible; but he also found that Mr. Baker suffers from panic disorder with agoraphobia and has a history of antisocial behaviour and some anger management issues. It would not be good for Mr. Baker to be unsupervised for extended periods while trying to cope with those problems. [ 50 ] Mr. Hanlon says Mr.

Baker might be able to accompany him when he visits his customers’ places of business to work on their equipment in Mr. Hanlon’s mobile trailer. I have two problems with Mr. Hanlon’s proposal: First, he works on small engines and related equipment. Many of the charges Mr. Baker faces relate to equipment of that type, including generators, ATV’s, chainsaws, propane tanks, grinders and smaller items like binoculars, pry bars, knives and, of course, firearms. I doubt that Mr. Hanlon’s customers would welcome Mr. Baker to their premises, given his criminal background and the present charges he faces.

Otherwise, it would place an additional, and unnecessary supervisory burden on Mr. Hanlon. [ 51 ] Furthermore, I have the same doubts as did the Provincial Court Judge about Mr. Baker’s ability to keep the peace and be of good behaviour if he is released pending trial. For example, Mr. Baker testified that he used unprescribed Suboxone while he has been on remand, as recently as a couple of weeks ago. He noted that Suboxone and other illegal drugs are widely available in Her Majesty Penitentiary in St. John’s, where he is detained, and says he used Suboxone because “he was down in the dumps”. Mr.

Baker also says he thought about committing suicide while on remand but did not inform prison authorities of his thoughts because he believed they would “put me in segregation”. [ 52 ] Overall, nothing of what I heard from Mr. Baker, Ms. Baker and Mr. Hanlon on the review hearing gives me confidence that Mr. Baker will abide by conditions if he is released or that Ms. Baker and Mr. Hanlon will be able to supervise him closely enough to ensure that he does. The “plan” if he is released that Mr.

Baker presented on this review is essentially the same one that he presented to the Provincial Court Judge at the bail hearing. The Judge justifiably rejected Mr. Baker’s plan and I do the same.

Summary and Disposition [ 53 ] Winston Baker is charged with 50 offences, 49 under various sections of the Criminal Code and 1 under a provincial statute. After a bail hearing, a Provincial Court Judge remanded Mr. Baker in custody pending his trial. Mr. Baker applied to review the decision to remand him. [ 54 ] The Court dismissed Mr. Baker’s application. It found that the Provincial Court Judge neither erred in law nor was his decision “clearly inappropriate”. The Provincial Court Judge weighed all relevant factors properly and did not give undue or insufficient weight to one or another of them.

Moreover, even with the updated and new evidence that Mr. Baker provided to the reviewing Court, there are no material and relevant changes in the circumstances of the case that justify varying the Provincial Court Judge’s decision.

Order [ 55 ] In the result, • I dismiss Winston Baker’s application; and • I order that Winston Baker remain in custody pending his trial in this court on the charges against him. _____________________________ Garrett A. Handrigan Justice