Monday, April 7, 2014

Common law peace bonds

R. v. Siemens, 2012 ABPC 116:

[16]           What is the test for ordering a person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace at common law? Grounds for such an order are likely broader than those governing statutory peace bonds. It is not necessary, for instance, to find the commission of an offence: criminal or regulatory. Nor is it necessary to find to find a threat or conspiracy to do so...
[21]           While the common law peace bond shares many of the features of statutory peace bonds, there are also some important differences. Durno J. provided a helpful summary of these differences in Musoni where he stated (at para.22):

The differences in the applications are that a s.810 peace bond is based on a sworn information while a common law peace bond generally is not; a s.810 bond can be for a period not to exceed 12 months while there is no maximum period for a common law bond; s.810 bond is based on a more limited basis, that the complainant’s fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common law partner or child or will damage his or her property. A common law peace bond has a wider scope, a reasonably apprehended breach of the peace; and a s.810 peace bond has a specific provision for breach allegations pursuant to s.811 which creates a hybrid offence of breaching a peace bond ordered under various Criminal Code sections. Where the election is indictment the maximum penalty is two years in jail and when prosecuted summarily the maximum penalty is six months. Where a common law peace bond is alleged to have been breached the prosecution is pursuant to s.127 of the Criminal Code, for disobeying a court order which has the same penalty provisions as s.811.

No comments: