R. v. Zora (2019 BCCA 9)
Court of Appeal finds that the duty-based nature of s. 145(3), combined with the risk-based nature of bail provisions, support Parliament’s intention for the application of an objective fault standard.
If there is a reasonable doubt that a reasonably prudent person would not have foreseen or appreciated the risk or could have done something to prevent the breach, an acquittal must follow.
In this case, appellant explained that he may have been sleeping to 2 police curfew checks that he did not respond to.
Appellant was a heroin addict on methadone which made him go to sleep earlier than usual.
Court found that Appellant’s failure to present himself at his door for two curfew compliance checks demonstrated a marked departure from what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.
A reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would have foreseen or appreciated the risk or could have done something to prevent the breach.