Law360 Canada (September 22, 2026, 2:29 PM EDT) -- An Ontario man convicted of serious gun crimes has been granted bail as he appeals his convictions — despite the “hostile” political environment surrounding interim release in cases involving serious criminal offences, says his lawyer.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s Sept. 16 decision in
R. v. Brown, 2026 ONCA 654 involves Steven Brown, who was granted bail as he appeals his conviction of “serious firearm-related offences.”
According to the Appeal Court’s written decision, Brown was found guilty of the crimes as the result of police conducting a search of his home.
Simon Kim, Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh
According to his lawyer, Simon Kim, Brown was the target of Project Breakout — a joint investigation by police in the rural centres of Chatham-Kent and St. Thomas in Ontario.
“Officers observed activities that they believed were consistent with drug trafficking and obtained a search warrant for Mr. Brown’s residence. During the search, the police seized a firearm,” Kim told Law360 Canada.
Brown was convicted of possessing a firearm, possessing one without a licence, possessing one knowing the serial number had been altered, and careless storage of a firearm.
At trial, the judge found that the warrant allowing police to search Brown’s home had violated his Charter rights.
However, despite the judge deeming this a “serious invasion of [Brown’s] personal privacy,” the trail judge “declined to exclude the evidence” brought forth by prosecutors. He noted that items seized by police included a loaded gun, and that Brown had already been serving a conditional sentence at the time of the search.
“These and other factors led the trial judge to conclude that excluding the evidence would significantly risk undermining the public’s confidence in the administration of justice,” writes the Appeal Court in its decision. “The applicant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 50 months.”
Brown appealed the convictions and sought bail pending that appeal. A proposed release plan was brought forth requiring him to live with his mother on house arrest and be subject to electronic monitoring.
In the end, Ontario Appeal Court Justice Patrick Monahan granted Brown’s request for bail, pending his appeal.
In making his decision, Justice Monahan turned to s. 679(3) of Canada’s
Criminal Code, which finds a judge may order that an appellant be released pending appeal if they establish three things: that their appeal is not frivolous; that they will surrender themselves into custody as per conditions of the order; and that their detention “is not necessary in the public interest.”
At appeal, the Crown opposed Brown’s interim release on the third point.
But Justice Monahan felt otherwise.
“The applicant is proposing release terms similar to those in effect for over two years prior to his conviction,” writes Justice Monahan. “He will be subject to electronic monitoring and will only be permitted to leave the residence in the company of one of his sureties. I am satisfied that this strict plan sufficiently addresses any public safety concerns arising from his release.”
He went on to note the “public confidence component of the public interest test,” finding that “a person convicted of a serious offence is not ‘turned loose’ on society while their appeal is proceeding if they are released on very stringent conditions including house arrest backed by GPS monitoring.”
Justice Monahan’s decision is significant when one considers the current political climate around the current state of the bail system, said Kim, an associate with Toronto’s Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh.
“What I find to be significant is that this case involves firearm-related offences, and obviously there is … the political climate around bail — especially when the relevant offences are serious, such as drug trafficking or firearm offences, etc. — it is pretty hostile, I would say. But, nonetheless, the law around bail pending appeal has been well established, and it was the court’s view that, applying the relevant law, Mr. Brown was a good candidate for bail pending appeal.”
Debate has been raging for some time across Canada — including in Ontario — on the issue of bail reform: many say the current system is too lenient and places the public at risk; others say it is punitive and contributes to the overcrowding of prisons.
This past June, Canada’s controversial
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act brought in sweeping new rules that make it harder to get bail in certain circumstances.
And last month, Ontario enacted changes to its bail system requiring that a cash security deposit be made within two days of an accused person being released to their sureties.
Not long after, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association
launched a constitutional challenge of Ontario’s cash bail requirement, arguing it creates a two-tier justice system — one for those with money, and one for everyone else.
In late August, an Ontario court placed a temporary hold on the cash bail system to determine its constitutionality.
What makes Brown’s case significant, said Kim, is that he was granted bail
after being convicted of crimes.
“Bail pending appeal is an exceptional remedy because the court is dealing with people who have been convicted of crime, and therefore to whom the presumption of innocence no longer applies. And the laws around bail pending appeal — and the legal test the court applies — are all pretty well settled.… The court reviewed the arguments made by the defence and the Crown and came to the conclusion that in the end, Mr. Brown had satisfied the court that he can be released into the community again pending the hearing of his appeal.”
Brown is a “good example” of someone who meets the test of being granted bail in such circumstances, said Kim.
“Mr. Brown is obviously a good example because part of the consideration really, part of the major consideration in the court’s decision, while it may not be apparent in the decision itself, was that he had been complying with his bail pending trial for roughly two years, under very stringent conditions, and we essentially proposed very similar … conditions for bail, pending appeal. The argument was, let him continue to stay in the community because these conditions have worked, and he has complied with them without exception.”
Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General had little to say about the Appeal Court’s ruling.
“As this matter is still before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment,” said a spokesperson in an email.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law 360 Canada, please contact Terry Davidson at t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5899.