Bail conditions not reasonably connected to purposes of bail are unconstitutional

R. v. Thompson, 2013 NSPC 124:

[8]     The purposes of a constitutional bail system were described by Lamer J. (as he then was)  in R. v. Morales.^[1]  They are not hard to grasp: bail is structured to get the accused to return to court as required, prevent the commission of further offences, and prevent the commission of offences against the administration of justice;  public safety and evidence preservation are implicit in this.

[9]     In order for bail to be reasonable, it makes sense that the conditions of bail must be reasonable.  A condition imposed upon the liberty interests of a person admitted to bail that is not connected reasonably to one of the constitutional purposes of the bail system is, in effect, not constitutionally compliant.  As was underscored recently with great clarity by Moir J. of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the automatic inclusion in bail-admission orders of terms not connected rationally to the individual case is not in harmony with the presumption of innocence.^[2]