Khalid Akram

Calgary DUI Laws in 2026: What Alberta Drivers Need to Know

Khalid Akram · October 2, 2026 ·

DUI and Impaired Driving Charges in Calgary

“DUI” is a common abbreviation in Canada; however, under the Criminal Code, the term impaired driving is more frequently used. An impaired-driving investigation in Calgary can include alcohol, cannabis, any prescribed drug, any other drug, and some other substance influencing a person’s ability to drive safely.

A driver might be subject to criminal charges, Alberta roadside sanctions, driving license consequences, seizure of the vehicle, insurance problems, and court proceedings. What will happen after all that depends on the exact charge, evidence, police actions, and ability of the prosecution to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Impaired driving is a serious field of criminal law. It would be unreasonable to think that a roadside sanction means a criminal conviction or a criminal charge would necessarily lead to a conviction because of an arrest by police.

What Counts as Impaired Driving in Calgary

Driving while impaired can be a claim that the person’s capacity to control a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol, drugs, or both. Also, driving while impaired can be a claim that the person had a prohibited blood alcohol or drug level at the time period provided in the Criminal Code.

The case of driving while impaired by alcohol may include observations of the police, use of roadside screening device, breath analysis, videos, witnesses, and the statements of the driver.

The case of driving while impaired by drugs may include observations of the driving behavior, physical signs of impairment, field sobriety test, drug recognition evaluation, oral fluid screening, and toxicology evidence.

That someone consumed alcohol, smoked marijuana, or ingested prescription drugs is not necessarily an answer to all questions posed by the law. The Crown has to prove the particular charge it has brought forward. Proof needs to go beyond the point of mere suspicion.

A refusal or failure to submit to testing after a proper demand can lead to criminal charges against a driver. It is considered a refusal case as the Crown tries to prove that the demand was proper and the driver had no reasonable excuse.

Roadside Stops and Police Demands

The police can investigate cases of impaired driving after witnessing unsafe driving, attending a traffic accident, getting a complaint about a suspect, stopping a car, or observing signs of alcohol or drug impairment.

When checking on someone at a road block, the police will ask for one’s identification, vehicle papers, and pertinent information about the investigation. The police will also request for a sample breath test using an approved screening device.

It is advisable for a suspect to remain calm and polite. One must not argue with the police or make any statements concerning drinking or drug use since this will provide more evidence against one. If one gets detained or arrested, he/she should be given time to talk to a lawyer.

If there is reason for further investigation, the police may demand further testing. If there is an allegation of alcohol-related impairment, it could be an evidentiary breath test. If there is a drug allegation, it could involve standardized field sobriety tests, oral-fluid screening instrument, or drug-recognition evaluation.

An impaired driving investigation may also be initiated after an accident. It should be noted that an accident does not establish the presence of impairment. Nevertheless, an accident could prompt an investigation into driving, statements from witnesses, the presence of signs, vehicle damage, and alcohol or drugs.

The circumstances of the stop are important. They could be examined in a defence analysis for such elements as the reasons for the stop, communications between the driver and police, timing of the demand, advisements, and rights of the accused. This can be particularly important when considering how lawyers challenge Calgary DUI stops.

Alberta Roadside Sanctions and Criminal DUI Charges

Under the provincial laws of Alberta, an individual is subject to an immediate roadside sanction for a driving violation. The sanction could take the form of licence suspension, vehicle confiscation, fines, mandatory education, mandatory ignition interlock, among others.

Not all roadside sanctions in Alberta are necessarily Criminal Code charges. There are cases where a driver receives an administrative notice but does not get criminally charged. In other cases, a roadside sanction and a criminal charge could result from the same case.

Each case operates separately. In the case of a criminal charge, the matter is tried in a court of law. The Crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

An application to review the decision must be done within a short period of time after being notified of the roadside sanction. The individual must keep all documentation, record the date and time when the act was committed and seek legal advice immediately. A person considering a review should understand the process for challenging an Alberta Immediate Roadside Sanction.

The roadside sanction may still hold much significance in terms of practicality for an individual. This may include traveling, working, dropping children off at school, accessing the vehicle, insurance issues and travel plans. Nonetheless, it should not be considered a criminal conviction unless the case was tried in a court of law.

What Happens After a Calgary DUI Arrest or Charge

When a person is arrested on charges of impaired driving, the police could release him/her with court papers and conditions.

A disclosure from the Crown will be made to that individual, which includes the notes, videos, breath tests, witness statements, and other documents.

An assessment of the case by the defense must consider the facts of the case.

This will consist of the time the demand was made, the roadside test, evidentiary breath tests, maintenance and operation records, the observation made by the police, and any statements that the driver makes.

If the case involves drugs impaired driving, then the review would consider the reason for the stop, the observations of the police, the field sobriety test, the drug recognition evaluation, and the toxicology results.

Police behaviour can also be relevant in such a situation. The lawyer could look into issues related to detention, arrest, access to counsel, searches, impoundment of the vehicle, interviewing and Charter compliance. An issue of law does not mean that the case is over, or that the evidence will be barred.

Some cases settle through negotiations following the review of the disclosure. Other cases are settled by way of law applications or trials. Without an understanding of the criminal, licence, insurance, employment, immigration and travel implications, one cannot plead guilty, make a trial decision or a sentencing decision.

A conviction for the offence of impaired driving comes with various implications which go beyond the immediate sentence. There might be impacts on the criminal record, licence, future insurance premiums, employment involving driving, professional licensing, travel to other countries, and future court proceedings.

The person charged with the Calgary DUI or the offence of impaired driving should seek guidance right from the onset. The documents, the date for challenging the roadside sanction, the disclosure and the exact charge all influence the available options.

Depending on the circumstances, an Impaired Driving Lawyer may review the criminal charge, roadside sanction, police demands and available evidence.

Where the allegation followed a crash, the issues may also overlap with a DUI investigation after a minor Calgary collision.

An Experienced Criminal Defence Lawyer can review the specific evidence and legal issues rather than assuming that every Calgary impaired-driving case will follow the same path.

Repeat Violent Offenders Canada 2026 Sentencing Rules

Khalid Akram · September 28, 2026 ·

2026 Sentencing Changes for Repeat Violent Offenders

The changes in Canada’s 2026 bail and sentencing reforms introduced new penalties for some individuals with previous violent convictions in case they get another violent sentence. The amendments do not impose a mandatory jail sentence or predetermined sentence for all individuals classified as repeat violent offenders. Rather, the new provisions call upon courts to take into account certain previous violent offending as an aggravating factor but at the same time consider the complete sentencing regime under the Criminal Code.

The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act was assented to on June 15, 2026. The majority of the bail and sentencing provisions will come into effect on July 15, 2026.

In case an individual in Calgary has to be sentenced, the main point is not only if this individual has a criminal record. The court should find out if the offence currently charged involved any violence, if previous conviction qualifies as per the test, if the conviction occurred within the prescribed period, and which sentence would be proportional in this case.

The New 2026 Rule for Repeat Violent Offending

The provisions of 2026 introduced an aggravating circumstance for qualifying repeat violent offending. Aggravating circumstances refer to facts that may justify a more severe punishment. However, such a circumstance alone does not determine the outcome; instead, the sentencing judge needs to consider it.

The new provision requires that the current crime includes violence, threat of violence, or an attempt at violence toward another individual, and that the offender has a qualifying conviction within the last five years of that nature.

Therefore, not all criminal history would fall within the new provision. If there is a past conviction that does not involve violence but, say, some property crime, then it cannot be included in the definition automatically. The judge will need to consider the specific character of the past offense instead of the general term “repeat offender.”

The phrasing also indicates that only one past qualifying conviction may be enough. One is not required to have many convictions for violence prior to the aggravating factor becoming applicable. Yet, having one past conviction for violence, together with a lengthy history of similar convictions, does not mean the same thing.

The five years are crucial. In determining the applicability of this aggravating factor, the court will look at the time when the past conviction was obtained, in order to decide whether it fits into the statutory period. If the past violent conviction is outside this period, then it will not satisfy this 2026 aggravating factor. It can remain relevant to the overall criminal record in certain situations, but cannot be considered as automatically satisfying this new aggravating factor.

Before considering these aggravating facts and convictions at sentencing, the Crown must establish both of them. Defence counsel has an opportunity to review all necessary documents.

The broader 2026 bail and sentencing reforms also introduced changes to bail rules, reverse-onus provisions and other sentencing considerations.

How Previous Violent Convictions Can Affect a Sentence

The presence of a criminal record may influence sentencing, but the court cannot just add up the number of convictions and impose a certain number of months or years in accordance with that. The judge needs to examine the criminal record in detail.

Recent conviction of the same type of violence may be considered as more relevant compared to the older unrelated conviction. In case there have been several convictions recently, it may be seen as the tendency of committing offences, but on the other hand a long gap in committing offences can give a different perspective. Moreover, it should be considered how the accused acted after the previous convictions; did he/she obeyed court orders or showed some signs of being rehabilitated.

For example, if the person has one recent conviction for violent offence, the court should take into account the new aggravating circumstance, as long as there is also the current offence of the violent nature. Yet, the judge has to assess the nature of both offenses.

Having several prior convictions for violent acts can make the Crown push for an increased sentence. The Crown can say that there needs to be more focus on the elements of denunciation and deterrence especially when previous sentences were unable to prevent future violent acts. It will then be up to the defence to argue about the particular record before the court, the accused, any steps towards rehabilitation, and other legal factors preventing excessive sentences.

In cases where the offender has a record containing both violent and non-violent convictions, careful consideration will be necessary. Not all prior convictions have equal legal importance in the case. The new aggravating factor concerning repeat-violence only applies to convictions that involve violence, threats of violence, or any act of violence done against another person. Other convictions can still play a role in the background of the case but should not be considered as qualifying violent convictions.

The main issue will be whether the Crown can show that the new rule applies and the weight that should be given to it in the entire sentencing process.

Sentencing Principles Still Apply in Calgary Courts

These changes in 2026 have neither stripped the judge of discretion nor substituted the well-established sentencing principles in Canada. The judge needs to apply the proportionate penalty depending on the nature of the crime committed by the offender.

Proportionality principle remains fundamental. While the serious violent crime might attract a harsh penalty, such penalty has to be based on the actual behavior, the consequences, the role played, and other facts. No severe penalties will be imposed just due to the public worry about the repeat offending.

The judges also take into consideration parity principle. When similar offenders commit similar offenses under similar conditions, then they ought to get similar sentences. It does not mean all the cases are treated alike but that a sentence should fit within the approach applied in other similar cases.

In relation to those offences for which there are consecutive sentences imposed upon a person, the issue of totality needs to be taken into account by the court. This means that the combination of the consecutive sentences should not become an overly harsh punishment. The newly proposed changes of 2026 may result in the need of the court to take into account the consecutive sentences in some cases; however, consecutive sentences of imprisonment are not automatic when it comes to repeat violent offences.

The court can take into account a number of sentencing purposes such as denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, reparation and responsibility. The importance of these purposes varies in different situations.

The issue of repeat violent offences makes denunciation and deterrence more important, while it does not mean that rehabilitation becomes irrelevant. Sentencing court can consider such factors as counselling, addiction treatment, mental health problems, employment, family situation, housing and other factors in order to find out reasons of the criminal’s behaviour or his future plans.

Guilty plea may also become a relevant factor, although its importance is determined by a number of circumstances such as timing, responsibility and influence on the witnesses.

Depending on the offence and circumstances, the court may also consider different sentencing options in a Calgary criminal conviction.

Preparing for Sentencing After a Violent Offence

The process of sentencing begins with the careful consideration of the true charge and the position of the Crown. The person who is subject to sentencing needs to know whether the Crown is relying on the new aggravating factor of repeat violence and which previous conviction is used.

Calgary criminal defence lawyers have the ability to review the criminal history of the accused and see whether the previously charged crime contains violence. The criminal defence counsel can look at the previous conviction to see whether it took place within five years and whether the Crown has enough evidence to use it.

The defence can provide some information about the accused to the court in order to present the complete picture. The information can range from the accused’s treatment, counseling sessions, letters of reference, employment, education, family, health and housing plans, and other actions done in order to prevent further offending.

A sentencing hearing is not a re-hearing of the original trial. Nevertheless, the factual findings of the Court may be of some significance. When there is a dispute between the prosecution and the defence as to the existence of an aggravating factor, the Court may have to resolve it in order for sentencing to take place.

The Court will also look at the range of sentences available, the maximum sentence for the offence, any mandatory provisions, as well as previous cases which deal with similar behavior. It must be tailored to the facts of the case rather than assume that all offenders with a history of violence will be punished similarly.

The 2026 amendments give more weight to the qualifying violent conviction in sentencing. These do not negate fairness, proportionality, and individualized sentencing. It takes a good sentencing stance to focus on the charges, the criminal history, the evidence, and the offender’s personal situation.

What Changed Under the 2026 Bail and Sentencing Reform Act?

Khalid Akram · September 25, 2026 ·

2026 Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Changes

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (previously Bill C-14) was enacted to amend the Criminal Code. The main bail and sentencing provisions of the new act came into force on July 15, 2026. They will affect the entire country, including Calgary and Alberta.

The new rules are specific in nature. This does not mean that everyone who is charged with an offense will automatically lose their bail or face increased sentencing. The effectiveness of the changes will depend on the particular charges and other circumstances.

2026 Bail Changes That May Affect Calgary Cases

Reverse-onus bail was expanded under the Act in particular situations. Under regular bail proceedings, the Crown has to justify the reason for detention. Under the reverse-onus proceedings, the accused has to prove that his or her detention should not take place.

There might be new or enhanced provisions of reverse-onus bail where the accused is charged with choking, suffocation, or strangulation, or where violent or organized-crime-related theft of automobiles, break and enter of dwelling houses, human trafficking, smuggling, violent extortion, and the third or subsequent indictable offence where there is violence are alleged. There is also a provision for the reverse onus on weapons where the requirements of the law are met and a qualifying conviction for the last ten years exists.

The exact wording of the section 515 is very important, as not all allegations of violence, assault charges, or criminal records would qualify for reverse onus.

Restraint is still part of bail hearings. The courts have to impose the least onerous conditions in the case of release. But in reverse-onus cases, the traditional statutory release ladder does not apply in the same manner.

The reforms also require courts to consider the number or seriousness of outstanding charges from separate events and whether an allegation involved random and unprovoked violence. These factors do not automatically require detention. They form part of the court’s individual assessment.

A more detailed explanation of the new bail laws in Canada for 2026 can help clarify how these changes apply to Calgary cases.

Sureties, Bail Conditions and Release Plans

Proposed sureties must be reviewed prior to a Calgary bail hearing. As per the new Act, generally, one can only be declared as a surety if he or she had not been convicted of an indictable offence during the past 10 years. However, an exception might be made by the court in exceptional cases where no other suitable surety exists.

Moreover, the Act also introduces provisions for prohibitions relating to weapons in certain cases. In cases of automobile theft and break-in into dwelling house, the court must also impose certain further conditions including geographic limitations, curfew or limitations on tools that might be used for gaining entry into the vehicle or the premises.

However, the condition must be relevant to the facts of the case. A good bail proposal must address the concerns of the Crown regarding attendance at court, public safety, contact with the complainant or witness, residence, supervision, and any surety proposed.

If an accused is alleged to have breached a release order or committed another offence while on release, the existing release may be at risk. In specified section 524 situations, the accused may have to show why detention is not justified after the earlier release is cancelled.

2026 Sentencing Changes

These provisions have application only once there is a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt. They do not establish whether someone gets bail or whether he is guilty.

An aggravating factor relating to repeat-violence was introduced by the Act. Where the offence was violent, threatened or attempted violence towards any individual and the offender has a qualifying conviction for conduct of that kind within five years, then the aggravating factor applies. It does not lead to a mandatory increase in the sentence, but it must be considered an aggravating factor if all statutory conditions are fulfilled.

Courts should also take into account consecutive imprisonment in certain repeat-violence cases. Consecutive terms are those that run one after the other rather than concurrently. This consideration of consecutive terms is not mandatory in all such cases, and the total sentence should not be overly harsh.

In some repeat auto-theft, repeat break-and-enter and criminal organization cases, denunciation and deterrence should receive primary consideration. Conditional sentences are also not available in some sexual offences.

Sentencing remains individualized. The judge must still consider proportionality, the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s responsibility, aggravating and mitigating factors, and applicable sentencing principles.

Offence Dates, Transitional Rules and Legal Advice

Date of 15 July 2026 is crucial since some of the bail amendments relate to the proceedings that are already underway. While some of the sentencing amendments are applicable to the proceedings already in progress, other amendments will be applicable only if the offences are committed on or after the coming into effect of a certain provision.

Charge date alone will not resolve the matter. Proper analysis might require an examination of the date of commission of the offence, the particular amendment, the date it comes into effect, as well as the transitional provision of the Act.

In relation to the Calgary criminal offence, timely consultation with a criminal defence lawyer can provide guidance concerning reverse onus, eligibility of surety, the issues a release plan should cover, and the sentencing provisions potentially applicable in case of a conviction.

Canada’s New Bail Rules for Strangulation and Choking 2026

Khalid Akram · September 24, 2026 ·

What Changed for Strangulation and Choking Cases in 2026?

The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act has altered various provisions of the Criminal Code relating to bail. The enactment came into effect on June 15, 2026, while the pertinent bail reforms became effective from July 15, 2026.

The first amendment relates to certain cases of assaults or sexual assaults that involve choking, suffocation, or strangulation of the complainant by the accused person.

According to s.515(6) of the Criminal Code as amended, a reverse-onus situation has been introduced for specific offences. The provision would apply in situations when the accused is charged with any relevant offence under ss.266 to 268 or ss.271 to 273 and charging is made with choking, suffocation, or strangulation in connection with the offence.

This represents an important change in the bail process. However, it does not affect the burden of proof in the trial.

What Does Section 515(6)(a)(ix) Mean?

Section 515(6)(a)(ix) identifies certain assault charges and sexual assault charges involving alleged choking, suffocation, or strangulation as a reverse-onus category.

The listed Criminal Code provisions are:

section 266 — assault;
section 267 — assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm;
section 268 — aggravated assault;
section 271 — sexual assault;
section 272 — sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, causing bodily harm, or other listed circumstances; and
section 273 — aggravated sexual assault.

The reverse-onus bail does not apply to every individual that has been charged with assault. Both the offence being charged and the conduct being alleged are relevant.

For instance, this new reverse-onus provision applies to situations where there has been an allegation of choking, suffocation, or strangulation in connection with any of the offences set out in the list.

This can be analyzed by a criminal defense lawyer in Calgary.

Does the New Rule Mean the Accused Is Presumed Guilty?

Not necessarily. A reverse onus bail hearing does not decide the question of whether or not the accused has committed the crime he is charged with.

There are three different things which need to be separated from each other.

First of all, there is the allegation itself, which tells us what the police or the prosecution claim was done.

Then comes the decision of the bail itself, whether the accused has to stay behind bars until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding and whether some restrictions need to be imposed.

Finally, there is the question of guilt or innocence itself, once the case goes for trial.

In the bail hearing itself, the accused does not have to prove that he is innocent.

Where section 515(6) of the Criminal Code applies, the accused has to explain why detention is not warranted.

Is Strangulation Automatically a Separate Criminal Offence?

Not simply because strangulation is alleged.

Choking, suffocation, or strangulation may arise in various situations under the Criminal Code. The particular section will depend on the alleged facts and elements of the crime.

For instance, according to section 267(c), an individual commits the offense under section 267 where he or she chokes, suffocates, or strangles the complainant during an assault.

It does not necessarily imply that every case that involves choking has to be categorized as aggravated assault.

Aggravated assault under section 268 has its own test and applies where the alleged assault wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of the complainant.

Section 272, on the other hand, makes reference to a particular offense where choking, suffocation, or strangulation occurs during a sexual assault.

In addition, section 246 of the Criminal Code mentions choking or suffocation; however, it is a separate offense with different legal elements and it relates to conduct aimed at facilitating an indictable offense. It should not be viewed as a general “strangulation charge.”

For someone who faces assault charges in Calgary, the proper starting point is therefore the actual charge and allegations.

Which Assault Charges Can Trigger the New Reverse-Onus Rule?

The 2026 amendment does not create one new offence called “strangulation assault.” Instead, it changes the bail consequences that may arise when specified existing offences involve alleged choking, suffocation, or strangulation.

Section 515(6)(a)(ix) refers to offences under sections 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, and 273.

The legal details matter because these sections cover offences with different elements.

Section 266: Assault

Section 266 deals with assault generally.

An assault might include an application of force without consent, among other possible scenarios captured in the definition of assault under the Criminal Code. The type of force in question might be varied.

According to the 2026 bail amendment, an offence that qualifies under s. 266 could come within the ambit of the new onus provision if choking, suffocation, or strangulation was used in committing the offence.

The point here is that the bail provision is not restricted to a charge under s. 267(c).

The particular charge, the Crown’s position, and the alleged facts have to be considered before determining the applicable bail principles.

Section 267: Assault Involving Choking, Suffocation, or Strangulation

Section 267 applies where an accused, while committing an assault:

carries, uses, or threatens to use a weapon or imitation weapon;
causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
chokes, suffocates, or strangles the complainant.

It means that choking, suffocation, and strangulation are all mentioned explicitly in s. 267(c).

But just because someone is charged with the crime outlined in section 267 does not mean that the alleged behaviour took place.

The objective of the bail hearing is totally different.

In this bail hearing, the question is whether it is appropriate for the accused to be detained pending the trial. If the new reverse onus provision is applicable, the accused should take into account the risks of s. 515.

Section 268: Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault pursuant to s. 268 is not to be confused with an alleged strangulation offence.

S. 268 is invoked when an assault has caused wounds, maiming, disfigurement or endangerment of the complainant’s life.

That an individual was alleged to have been choked would not necessarily establish whether the elements required for aggravated assault were present.

The facts and consequences are important.

Nonetheless, s. 268 is listed as one of the offences included in s. 515(6)(a)(ix).

In such cases, where there is an applicable s. 268 charge in conjunction with choking, suffocation or strangulation during the commission of the offence, the reverse onus provision might apply.

What About Sexual Assault Charges?

The 2026 amendment will also apply to sexual assault as per sections 271 to 273.

Section 271 deals with sexual assault.

Section 272 deals with sexual assault committed under certain circumstances. Among these circumstances, there is choking, suffocating, or strangling the complainant as per section 272(1)(c.1).

Section 273 deals with aggravated sexual assault, which is characterized by wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or putting at risk the life of the complainant during the course of sexual assault.

All three sections are specifically referred to in the amended bail provision.

The focus of this article is on assault and bail provisions rather than on sexual assault law. The important aspect here is that 515(6)(a)(ix) provision includes all three provisions in relation to the particular allegation of choking, suffocating, or strangling.

Why the Exact Charge Matters

A person should not assume that every allegation involving the neck or breathing produces the same charge or the same bail issue.

The court may need to consider:

the Criminal Code section actually charged;
how the alleged assault is described;
whether choking, suffocation, or strangulation is alleged;
whether section 515(6) applies;
whether another reverse-onus provision also applies; and
the circumstances relevant to release or detention.

What Does Reverse Onus Mean at a Bail Hearing?

The reverse onus provision results in changing the party who should prove whether detention or release is necessary during the bail hearing.

Where an ordinary bail proceeding occurs in accordance with s. 515, the Crown has the burden to demonstrate why detention should take place or whether the less restrictive conditions of release are necessary.

In case of reverse onus, the burden changes.

According to s. 515(6), it will be up to the accused to prove why there is no reason for his detention. After the 2026 amendments, it was specified that the accused must provide clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of the release proposal to address the statutory reasons for detention.

The release plan becomes especially significant in such cases.

However, reverse onus does not result in the inability of the accused to obtain release from custody.

What Is Different From an Ordinary Bail Hearing?

The basic difference concerns the burden at the hearing.

Issue	Ordinary Bail	Reverse-Onus Bail
Who generally has the burden?	Crown must justify detention or more restrictive release	Accused must show why detention is not justified
Is guilt decided?	No	No
Must the accused prove innocence?	No	No
Can the accused still be released?	Yes	Yes
Does the release plan matter?	Yes	It can be especially important

The exact bail analysis still depends on the Criminal Code and the circumstances before the court.

A reverse-onus hearing should therefore not be treated as a trial before the trial.

What Must the Accused Demonstrate?

Section 515(6) now places specific emphasis on the accused’s proposed release plan.

Where the provision applies, the accused must clearly demonstrate that the proposed plan addresses the risks associated with the relevant detention grounds under section 515(10).

A release plan may need to deal with practical questions such as:

Where will the accused live?
How will the accused attend court when required?
How will any no-contact restriction be followed?
Can the accused stay away from specified places if required?
How will concerns about alleged interference with witnesses be addressed?
Is supervision appropriate or available?
Can the accused realistically comply with the proposed conditions?

A plan should respond to the actual concerns raised in the case. Simply saying that the accused promises to follow the rules may not address the issues the court must consider.

What Are the Three Grounds for Detention?

Grounds for detentions under Section 515(10)

There are three different grounds on which detention can be legally justified under Section 515(10).

The first is the ground of attendance. It deals with the question as to whether detention is needed for securing attendance in court.

The second ground is that of public protection or safety. It includes safety of the person who is considered the victim of the alleged crime or the witness. There could be a strong possibility of the accused committing another crime.

The tertiary ground concerns maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

Regarding the tertiary factor, the Criminal Code highlights the following factors: the strength of the Crown’s case; the seriousness of the offence; the nature of the circumstances in which the offence occurred; and the potential for serious consequences if convicted.

After the amendment in 2026, s. 515(10)(c) has pointed out that consideration should also be made about the number or seriousness of other charges resulting from separate incidents.

The relevant grounds will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Does Reverse Onus Mean Bail Will Be Denied?

No.

Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, there are grounds for release should an accused under Section 515(6) be able to prove that detention is not warranted.

The most significant element is the burden.

The burden here shifts from the general presumption wherein it lies on the Crown to prove detention to be necessary to the accused who falls into one of the categories covered by the reverse onus provision.

It would be prudent for an accused to prepare in advance of the hearing especially when charged with strangulation assault.

The plan should deal with such issues as contact with the complainant, residency, compliance, and court appearance, among others.

Does the Accused Have to Challenge the Allegations at Bail?

A bail hearing can involve looking at the allegations and how strong the case appears to be. But the role of the bail hearing is not to decide the guilt of the individual.

It is not necessary for the accused to prove innocence before securing a release from jail.

The first thing that needs to be done in a reverse onus case is to explain why the detention cannot take place under the grounds set out in the Criminal Code and how the release plan helps to mitigate those risks.

That is an important difference.

An accused person can challenge the allegations and suggest conditions that will serve to address bail concerns. Acceptance of the release conditions doesn’t imply that the offence took place.

A criminal defence lawyer specializing in assault cases can ensure that those two issues remain distinct from each other.

What Happens After an Arrest for Alleged Strangulation in Calgary?

Step 1: Arrest and the Initial Release Decision

Once a person is arrested, the authorities have to figure out what the treatment of that person will be in accordance with the Criminal Code.

The accused person can be either released or detained pending the hearing of bail.

The allegation of strangulation is not, in and of itself, an indication that the person should be detained automatically.

Nevertheless, if there is an allegation of strangulation in the context of sections 266 to 268 and 271 to 273, then the reverse onus law may be applicable during the bail hearing according to section 515.

Step 2: The Accused May Be Held for a Bail Hearing

However, if police decide not to release the accused, the accused may have to appear before a Justice of the Peace or Justice regarding bail.

At this point, the question does not lie about whether the accused is guilty or not.

It depends on whether the detention of the accused is warranted either by primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds and whether the accused, in case reverse onus applies, has mitigated the issues involved in the release plan.

In case the hearing is continued, and the accused remains in custody, the court might also give an order regarding non-communication of the accused towards the victim, the witness, or other identifiable persons.

The accused must comply strictly with this order.

Step 3: Determine Whether Reverse Onus Applies

One of the first legal questions is whether the charge actually falls within section 515(6)(a)(ix).

A Calgary bail hearing lawyer may review:

the Criminal Code section charged;
the wording of the allegations;
whether choking, suffocation, or strangulation is alleged;
the accused’s criminal and release history;
other outstanding charges;
whether another reverse-onus provision applies; and
the Crown’s position on detention or release.

This assessment matters because the burden at the bail hearing can change depending on the applicable provision.

The fact that a complainant alleges pressure to the neck should not replace an examination of the actual charge and the statutory requirements.

Step 4: Identify the Crown’s Bail Concerns

The Crown may oppose release or seek particular conditions based on one or more grounds under section 515(10).

The concerns may relate to:

whether the accused will attend court;
alleged risks to the complainant or public;
possible interference with a victim or witness;
past compliance with court orders;
outstanding charges;
the circumstances of the alleged offence; or
maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

In a reverse-onus case, the proposed release plan should respond directly to the risks raised rather than rely on broad promises that the accused will comply.

Step 5: Prepare a Practical Release Plan

A release plan explains how the accused proposes to live and comply with court requirements if released.

Depending on the case, it may address:

where the accused will reside;
whether that residence creates contact with the complainant;
how no-contact terms can be followed;
employment or school arrangements;
transportation to court;
supervision where appropriate;
access to weapons;
existing court orders; and
other practical measures connected to the identified risks.

The 2026 reverse-onus wording specifically requires an accused caught by section 515(6) to clearly demonstrate how the proposed release plan addresses the relevant risks under section 515(10).

Step 6: The Bail Hearing Takes Place

At the hearing, the court looks at the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, the parties’ positions, and all evidence that is legally before the court.

Where section 515(6)(a)(ix) is involved, the accused carries the reverse onus.

It does not imply that the accused needs to refute the claim of the assault.

It implies that the accused will need to demonstrate that detention is unnecessary and how the proposed release plan addresses those issues.

The court could either release the accused, impose conditions or detain him/her.

Step 7: Follow Every Release Condition

If the accused is released, every term of the undertaking or release order should be treated seriously.

A person should not assume that a condition allows conduct that is not clearly permitted.

For example, if an order prohibits communication with the complainant, the accused should not assume that communication through:

a friend;
a relative;
a new social media account;
another person’s telephone; or
an online message

is permitted.

Indirect communication can also be prohibited where the wording of the order covers it.

If a condition is unclear, the safer course is to obtain legal advice rather than test its limits.

Breaching a release condition can lead to additional criminal consequences and may affect the accused’s release status.