B.C. Appeal Court judge’s bail decision conforms to law, not public pressure

Law360 Canada (January 19, 2026, 11:52 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

A recent CBC News report stated that overcrowding at the Niagara Detention Centre in Thorold, Ont., reached its highest level since 2019 in the first half of 2025. Its occupancy rate stands at 136 per cent. The report further states that, in 2024, 89 per cent of the jail’s population were awaiting trial and presumed innocent. It also quotes University of Ottawa criminology professor Justin Piché as saying, “Several of those folks will exit prison, never having been convicted of anything.”

Professor Piché blames the widespread public sentiment favouring “jail, not bail” as the impetus for the overcrowding. To address this, Ontario’s Solicitor General Michael Kerzner pledged $180 million in taxpayer dollars to add 50 new beds to the Niagara Detention Centre.

Perhaps there is a better way. That would involve remanding only those who pose a genuine danger to society and restricting the movement of those not jailed through increased supervision, ankle bracelets and house arrest. But this might be seen as politically unpopular, pandering to the “soft on crime” segment of the population.

The risk is that political hardliners might exert moral suasion on the courts to reject any leniency perceived as pandering to criminals if they remain locked away. Further, what about individuals who may have been wrongfully convicted and are planning an appeal? Should society ignore its desire to be set free?

The Honourable Justice Andrew P. Mayer of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was presented with a motion to grant bail on appeal in the case of Chun Mei Ma. The Appeal Court justice released his decision on Jan. 14, 2026 (R. v. Ma, 2026 BCCA 17).

Ma was convicted on April 11, 2025, of attempting to obstruct justice and was sentenced on Dec. 12, 2025, to six months’ imprisonment. She appealed both the conviction and the sentence and applied for release pending appeal under s. 679 of the Criminal Code. She will have served at least a month in custody by the time her application was heard on Jan. 14, 2026.

Applying the test set out in R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, the court found that Ma met all three criteria for release. Her appeal was not frivolous, as it raised arguable grounds, including alleged errors of law and procedural unfairness, despite challenges to factual and credibility findings. The Crown agreed she posed no flight risk, she is a Canadian citizen, a long-term Richmond, B.C., resident, and compliant with prior bail conditions. Her detention was also not warranted in the public interest, given her lack of criminal history beyond this matter, her low risk of reoffending, her compliance with no-contact conditions and the short sentence, which she would likely complete before her appeal could be heard.

The court granted Ma release pending appeal on a $10,000 promise to pay, with conditions including reporting to a bail supervisor, residence and travel restrictions, surrender of travel documents, no contact or proximity to the complainant, a weapons prohibition, diligent pursuit of the appeal and surrendering back into custody on a specified future date if the appeal has not progressed to hearing.

Justice Mayer delivered a concise, 14-paragraph judgment that is reasoned and sound. At one time, it would likely have drawn little, if any, criticism. Yet in these days of “tough on crime,” the judge is to be congratulated for looking to the law and not succumbing to popular pressure to keep society safe by keeping criminals locked away. His reasons establish safeguards restricting Ma’s movement and ancillary orders that ensure public safety.

If Ma’s appeal is successful and results in an acquittal, the injustice of keeping an innocent person locked away will be mitigated. If other judicial officials in Ontario followed suit, taxpayers might not be liable for multimillion-dollar facility expansions.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.