Ontario Bail Rules Change Aug. 17 as Province Faces Constitutional Challenge

THUNDER BAY — New Ontario bail measures take effect Monday, Aug. 17, requiring full payment of certain financial security amounts ordered in connection with an accused person’s release, while giving the province stronger tools to recover forfeited bail money.

The Ford government says the changes are intended to improve compliance and accountability for people released on bail. The measures will apply across Ontario, including Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario, but they do not replace the federal Criminal Code rules that judges and justices of the peace use to decide whether an accused person should be released or detained.

The changes are also facing a legal challenge. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers’ Association announced Aug. 14 that they intend to challenge the mandatory security-deposit provisions on constitutional grounds.

What changes in Ontario on Aug. 17?

Under the new provincial measures, when a release order includes an amount that an accused person or surety has promised to pay if bail conditions are breached, a cash security deposit equal to the full pledged amount will have to be paid after the accused is released. The province says payment will be due within two business days.

Previously, when a court ordered an accused or surety to promise to pay an amount, the money generally did not have to be deposited at the time of release. If bail conditions were later breached and a court ordered forfeiture, Ontario would then have to pursue the debt.

The province says the changes will also:

• Require sureties to provide current identification and contact information.
• Allow stronger collection measures for bail debts, including wage and bank-account garnishment, property liens and seizure and sale of property.
• Support development of a provincial surety database intended to help prosecutors and justice officials check people who offer to supervise accused persons on bail.

A surety is someone who agrees to help supervise an accused person in the community and ensure that bail conditions are followed. Federal law already requires a proposed surety to disclose information including their name, date of birth, contact information, financial circumstances, relationship with the accused and the amount they are prepared to promise or deposit.

The provincial changes were enacted through the Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act, 2026 and earlier amendments under the Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act, 2025.

Province says financial consequences will strengthen compliance

Attorney General Doug Downey said the government believes stronger financial enforcement will make bail conditions more consequential.

“People deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and confident that those who pose a serious risk will not be released only to reoffend,” Downey said in the government’s announcement.

Solicitor General Michael Kerzner said bail conditions are court orders and should carry consequences when breached.

The province also says its specialized bail prosecution teams have handled more than 5,300 serious violent cases at the bail stage since 2023. Ontario has expanded teams of Crown attorneys and other professionals focused on serious and repeat violent offending.

What Ontario can — and cannot — change about bail

Bail in Canada involves both federal and provincial responsibilities.

The federal government controls criminal law and criminal procedure, including the Criminal Code provisions governing when someone may be detained or released. Provinces administer justice, prosecute most Criminal Code offences, conduct bail proceedings, operate provincial remand facilities and enforce release conditions.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code remains central to bail decisions.

For most offences, the starting point is release unless the Crown demonstrates why detention or more restrictive release conditions are justified. Courts are also required to use the least onerous appropriate form of release.

The Criminal Code specifically states that a court should favour a promise to pay over requiring money to be deposited when the accused or surety has reasonably recoverable assets. A surety requirement itself is to be imposed only when it is the least onerous appropriate form of release.

Courts may order detention when necessary to ensure the accused attends court, to protect public safety, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. For certain offences and circumstances — including some repeat violent offending, firearm allegations and offences allegedly committed while already on release — the Criminal Code places the burden on the accused to show why detention is not justified.

Civil liberties and defence lawyers launching challenge

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers’ Association say they plan an urgent constitutional challenge to Ontario’s mandatory security-deposit requirement.

The organizations argue that criminal procedure falls under federal jurisdiction and that Ontario’s law conflicts with the Criminal Code framework governing when cash deposits should be required. They also argue that mandatory deposits could disadvantage accused people with fewer financial resources.

The Ontario Bar Association raised similar concerns while the legislation was being considered. Its Criminal Justice Section argued that requiring cash deposits could make financial means, rather than public-safety risk, more important in determining whether a workable bail plan can be arranged.

Those arguments have not yet been determined by a court, and the provincial measures are scheduled to take effect Aug. 17.

What happens when bail conditions are breached?

The new Ontario collection rules deal primarily with the financial consequences attached to bail, but breaching a release order can already lead to additional consequences under the Criminal Code.

Under Section 145(2), an accused who is at large on a release order and fails without lawful excuse to attend court can be charged with failure to attend court.

Under Section 145(5), an accused who fails without lawful excuse to comply with another condition of a release order can also face a separate criminal charge. Examples could include violating a no-contact condition, curfew or geographic restriction imposed by the court.

Both are hybrid offences. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum sentence is two years in prison. When prosecuted summarily, the general Criminal Code maximum is two years less a day in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both, unless another penalty provision applies. Actual sentences depend on the circumstances of the offence, the accused’s record and other sentencing principles.

A breach can also lead to the accused being returned to court and their existing release order being cancelled. Section 524 provides a process under which an accused may be detained following an alleged violation or certain new charges while already on release.

Separately, Section 771 of the Criminal Code allows a court to order forfeiture of money promised or deposited under a release order. Ontario’s new collection measures are intended to make recovery of that money easier after forfeiture has been ordered.

Why the changes matter in Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario

The practical impact will be seen in bail courts across the province, including cases originating with the Thunder Bay Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police and First Nations police services.

For accused people, sureties and families, a significant change will be that a financial promise attached to a release order can now create an immediate requirement to provide the money shortly after release rather than becoming a debt only if forfeiture is later ordered.

At the same time, federal protections governing bail remain in place.

Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code requires courts to consider release at the earliest reasonable opportunity and impose the least onerous appropriate conditions. Section 493.2 specifically requires judges, justices and police to give particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous accused and members of vulnerable populations who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and disadvantaged in obtaining release.

That provision is particularly relevant when assessing how any financial component of bail operates in Northern and remote communities. Ontario’s new legislation changes provincial administration of bail security, but it does not remove the court’s obligation to apply those federal principles.

Presumption of innocence remains fundamental

Bail is a pretrial process. A person appearing at a bail hearing has been accused of an offence but has not been found guilty.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause, and accused people are presumed innocent unless and until guilt is proven in court.

The coming legal dispute will therefore centre not only on the Ontario government’s stated public-safety objectives, but also on the constitutional division of powers and the protections governing pretrial liberty.