An accused person spent over a year in pretrial custody before raising the statutory restrictions on cash bail. The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal from the constitutional ruling, but said the review judge had misapplied the bail provisions and imposed an unjustifiably onerous form of release.
The Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent and release is favoured on the least onerous appropriate terms, unless the Crown justifies moving up the statutory ladder. A decision about reasonable bail isn't a finding that the person is guilty or that detention can never be necessary.
The case arose from a bail order requiring Antic to provide cash as well as a surety despite his ability to offer a recognizance backed by a monetary pledge. The Supreme Court explained that the Criminal Code requires decision makers to begin with the least restrictive available form of release. To move up the ladder of restrictions, the Crown must explain why the less restrictive option will not address the statutory concerns. Requiring cash can have particular consequences for people who cannot readily produce funds, even when they own property that could secure a pledge.
The Court allowed the Crown's appeal because the challenged bail provision itself was constitutional, but held that the review judge had incorrectly applied the statutory release framework. Its reasons were not an order that accused persons must always be released or that cash bail can never be used. They require a justified and proportionate choice of conditions. For Binder Controlled, the decision demonstrates how a seemingly administrative selection of conditions can determine whether a legally presumed innocent person remains confined.