Using 810.1 and 810.2 peace bonds to reduce violence in Canada
The document Handbook for High-Risk Offenders – A Handbook for Criminal Justice Professionals was published in 2001 by Public Safety Canada. Although dated, it provides a basic description of 810.1 and 810.2 peace bonds:
On August 1, 1997, Bill C-55 came into effect and created the section 810.2 order. The 810.2 order focuses on violent offenders, including sexual offenders. Both of these sections are designed to be preventative and not punitive, hence, it is not necessary for an offender to have a previous criminal record in order to qualify for one of these orders.
These orders can be made for a maximum of one year [this has since been extended, in some circumstances, to two years]. Conditions can be attached to these orders and a breach of an 810 order constitutes an offence. These orders are quite broad in their application, as a crime need not have been committed and the potential victim need not be named. Should a defendant refuse to enter into an 810 order they can be imprisoned for up to one year.
Two of these orders, 810.01, (When fear of a criminal organization offence); and 810.2, (Where fear of a serious personal injury offence) require the consent of the Attorney General of the province, or if in the territories the consent of the Attorney General Canada, to proceed. Each of the 810 orders has standard conditions set out in the Code. In each case the court will consider whether to impose these conditions based on the interests of society and the interests of the safety of the potential victims. The court also has the discretion to impose any additional conditions it sees fit as long as these conditions meet the test of reasonableness. Additional conditions are commonly applied to 810.1 orders (Where Fear of a Sexual Offence) and to 810.2 orders (Where Fear of a Serious Personal Injury Offence).
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in R. v. Baker (1999) [B.C.J No. 681 (B.C.S.C.)] that it is not necessary for the informant (the person who has the fear) to have had contact with the defendant in order to lay an information under section 810.2.
Generally, while the conditions associated with 810 orders do impose some restrictions on the defendant, they should not prevent the defendant from leading a reasonably normal life. See R. v. Budreo (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 245, 45 C.R. (4th) 133 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), affd (unreported, January 19, 2000, Ont. C.A., Court File No. C23785).
In my view, these peace bonds are an important tool. Used properly, they can reduce violence and keep potential offenders out of jail.
Here are some of the more important cases I’ve been able to find about 810.1 and 810.2 orders:
R v. Boone, 2007 MBPC 15
This case is useful for its examination of various conditions that can be applied under 810.1 and 810.2 orders.
R. v. J. S. H., 2017 BCPC 12
The Court declined to order an 810.2 for the defendant. Most of the Defendant’s criminal record was as a youth, and his last criminal conviction was five years ago. He spent 14 months on a recognizance of bail pending the 810.2 hearing, and his conduct during that time was upstanding. Of note, at para 21, there is a list of examples in case law where orders have been made under section 810.2 even though the Defendants had similar periods of compliance with their bail orders.
R. v. Nikal, 2016 BCSC 29
This was a provincial court decision appealed to the BC Supreme Court. The BC Supreme Court found that the original judge did not have to articulate imminent harm (para 42). All that was necessary was for the evidence to show that apprehension of the risk is reasonably grounded and is neither speculative nor remote (para 40).
R. v. Fendley, 2013 BCPC 194
The Court granted an 810.1 order even though the Defendant had no criminal record for sexual offences (para 5). The Court also found there was no requirement for the Informant to prove “serious and imminent danger” (paras 20 – 28). The reason this language is important is that a much earlier court decision from another province suggested that “serious and imminent danger” was required (even though this language was not present in the Criminal Code).
R. v. Baker, 1999 CanLII 15135 (BC SC)
The hearing judge need only find on the balance of probabilities that there are reasonable grounds that the appellant will commit a personal injury offence (para 44).
R. v. R.H.G.M., 2010 BCPC 434
This case resulted in a peace bond with comprehensive conditions, including a curfew, a red zone and a no alcohol condition (paras 31 – 34). The Defendant had a criminal record dating back to 1988. He had amassed approximately 30 convictions, including a three year federal sentence for aggravated assault.
R. v. Penunsi, 2015 CanLII 64020 (NL SCTD)
Section 515 of the Criminal Code (judicial interim release) applies to proceedings on an Information laid pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code.
R. v. Burton, 2013 ONSC 4531
This case resulted in a substantial sentence for breaching an 810.2 order. In addition to a lengthy jail sentence, the offender also received a probation order with a comprehensive and innovative list of conditions.