Case Name:
R. v. [REDACTED]
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Ontario Court of Justice
Toronto, Ontario
Judge: [REDACTED]
Heard: [REDACTED]
Judgment: [REDACTED]
(4 paras.)
Counsel:
[REDACTED] Counsel for the Crown
[REDACTED] Counsel for the Accused
1 Judge: [REDACTED]:-- Counsel for the accused has brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal with respect to counts three and four on an Information alleging a breach of a recognizance. The fons et origo of a breach must be the document which obliges the accused to do something, to do the very things he's charged with breaching. The basis for directed verdict is outlined in the case of R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154. There must be some evidence before the Court on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed as to the law, could, if it were believed, convict.
2 Here, as is said by Justice Hryn, the back of the recognizance binds the accused. In short, it is the acknowledgement by the accused and his surety which forms the basis of his obligation. He has not signed the document. He never undertook to be bound by the document because the document requires that the recognizance - and I quote - "has been read over to me and explained and I fully understand the same."
3 This is a condition precedent for his obligation. He did not sign that, and I have no evidence that he signed any other document attached to this alleged recognizance indicating that it had been read over to him and that he understood it.
4 Accordingly, although the principles outlined in R. v. C.S., [1997] O.J. No. 6090, pertained to a different fact situation, the underlying necessity to have an acknowledgement by the accused to be bound by the recognizance has not been met, and accordingly there'll be a directed verdict of acquittal on both counts.
