SCC on breaches of bail and social host liability for parents hosting a teenage house party with alcohol

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

In a recent decision the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that when someone is arrested and charged with an offence, the presumption is that they should be released without the imposition of any conditions.

Any conditions of release that are imposed must be clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention.

In British Columbia, courts have been using a 24-page “pick list” of bail conditions, and accused people were routinely being released with numerous conditions selected from it. As a result, a large number of people end up being charged with breaching bail conditions. 

The Supreme Court of Canada made clear that the setting of bail is to be an individualized process and there is no place for standard, routine, or boilerplate conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada further concluded that for someone to be convicted of breaching a condition of release, the Crown is required to prove that the person intended to breach their bail conditions or were reckless about it. This is a change from how British Columbia courts had been dealing with breach of bail charges.

The case the Supreme Court of Canada was dealing with involved a man from Courtenay who was convicted for failing to come to the door when the police rang his doorbell to confirm his compliance with a curfew condition. The man was home but did not hear the doorbell in his bedroom. 

Also discussed on the show is a case involving social host liability arising from a tragic car accident on Salt Spring Island following a teenage house party.

While people hosting private parties for adults are not, generally, responsible for car accidents their guests have, there can be a liability for commercial establishments serving liquor, or where there is a duty of care arising from a failure to adequately supervise children.

The case involved parents who permitted a house party that involved teenagers drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. The parents concluded that because this activity would go on regardless, it would be better to permit and supervise it.

The parents took steps including collecting car keys from people who drove to the party and driving several teenagers home at the end of the night. 

Unfortunately, two teenagers who attended the party walked away and took a car parked at a neighbour’s house that had keys left in it. There was a car accident and the driver died. The 17-year-old passenger, who suffered life-altering injuries, sued the parents.

The judge in the case concluded that the parents were not responsible for the accident on the basis that they had taken reasonable steps in the circumstances, including the age of the children.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.