Effectiveness Of Alternative Pre-Trial Measures
I. OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE PRE-TRIAL MEASURES IN CANADA
Alternative pre-trial measures are mechanisms used instead of traditional pre-trial detention or full prosecution. Courts interpret these measures through principles of:
Proportionality
Least restrictive means
Presumption of innocence
Charter protections (s.7, s.9, s.11(e))
Common Alternative Pre-Trial Measures
Diversion / Extrajudicial Measures (EJM) — usually for minor or first-time offences.
Pre-Charge or Post-Charge Diversion — Crown may divert cases from court to rehabilitation programs.
Conditional Releases & Bail Programs — supervision, curfews, reporting, treatment plans.
Restorative Justice Conferences — mediation, apology, community accountability.
Therapeutic Courts — drug treatment courts, mental health courts.
Courts evaluate effectiveness by examining:
Reduction of recidivism
Rehabilitation success
Protection of public safety
Efficiency and fairness in the criminal justice system
Consistency with constitutional rights
II. CASE LAW — DETAILED EXPLANATIONS
Below are six major cases, each illustrating a different aspect of alternative pre-trial measures and how Canadian courts interpret them.
1. R. v. Antic (2017, SCC)
Topic: Least restrictive bail measures.
Facts
Antic was denied bail after proposing a cash deposit release. The lower courts imposed overly strict conditions.
Decision
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the “ladder principle” under the Criminal Code:
Courts must start with unconditional release.
More restrictive conditions (cash deposit, surety, house arrest) can only be used if justified.
Pre-trial detention should be exceptional, not routine.
Significance
Strengthened presumption of release and fairness in bail decisions.
Reinforces that pre-trial alternatives (supervision, reporting, counselling) must be considered before detention.
Establishes strict judicial reasoning standards.
2. R. v. Myers (2019, SCC)
Topic: Automatic review of pre-trial detention.
Facts
Myers had been detained pre-trial for an extended period. He challenged the failure to get timely detention reviews.
Decision
SCC held that automatic judicial review is essential to prevent unlawful prolonged detention.
Courts must ensure pre-trial detention remains necessary and proportionate.
Judges must consider whether alternative measures (supervision, electronic monitoring, community supports) can replace detention.
Significance
Ensures that detention is continuously assessed.
Highlights effectiveness of alternative measures to prevent unnecessary incarceration.
3. R. v. Pearson (1992, SCC)
Topic: Constitutionality of reverse onus provisions.
Facts
Pearson challenged a reverse-onus bail provision requiring him to prove why he should be released.
Decision
SCC upheld reverse-onus in certain serious offences but stressed that courts must always consider “reasonable alternatives to detention.”
Judicial discretion remains fundamental.
Significance
Even where detention is presumed, the court must consider non-custodial pre-trial options.
Validates principles that liberty interests under s.7 and s.11(e) are central.
4. R. v. T.W. (2008, ONCA)
Topic: Diversion as a pre-trial measure.
Facts
T.W., a young offender charged with assault, successfully completed a community-based diversion program. The Crown attempted to pursue prosecution anyway.
Decision
Court held that successful completion of diversion demonstrates accountability and rehabilitation.
Further prosecution was deemed unnecessary and disproportionate.
Diversion fulfills many goals of the criminal justice system without burdening courts.
Significance
Strong judicial endorsement of diversion as effective and fair.
Recognizes that diversion can appropriately address harm and reduce recidivism.
5. R. v. McDiarmid (2014, BCCA)
Topic: Therapeutic courts as alternative pre-trial pathways.
Facts
Accused with addictions entered a drug treatment court program but faced allegations of non-compliance.
Decision
Court emphasized that drug treatment courts are effective pre-trial alternatives because they:
Address root causes of offending
Reduce incarceration
Provide structured supervision
Non-compliance should be treated procedurally, not as criminal misconduct, unless serious.
Significance
Validates therapeutic justice models.
Encourages flexibility in considering human circumstances and treatment environments.
6. R. v. L.M. (2016, QCCA)
Topic: Restorative justice conferences as a pre-trial measure.
Facts
L.M. participated in a restorative justice conference following a theft charge. Victim agreed the harm was repaired.
Decision
Court recognized restorative justice outcomes as legitimate pre-trial alternatives, reducing the need for prosecution.
Restorative agreements can significantly mitigate or eliminate need for formal penalties.
Significance
Reinforces that restorative justice is effective, meaningful, and legitimate.
Shows courts view restorative processes as promoting accountability and healing.
7. R. v. S.B. (2012, MBCA)
Topic: Pre-trial supervision programs.
Facts
S.B. was detained pending trial despite eligibility for a supervision program requiring check-ins and counselling.
Decision
Court criticized lower courts for not considering community-based supervision as a viable alternative.
Held that supervision programs reduce risk sufficiently without depriving youth of liberty.
Significance
Affirms the effectiveness of structured community supervision.
Encourages courts to use alternatives instead of defaulting to detention.
8. R. v. R.A. (2005, ONCJ)
Topic: Pre-charge diversion and public interest.
Facts
R.A., a first-time adult offender, entered a pre-charge diversion program related to minor theft.
Decision
Court highlighted diversion as an effective tool for first-time and low-risk offenders.
Diversion reduces burden on courts while maintaining accountability.
Significance
Strengthens legitimacy of Crown diversion policies.
Recognizes proportional and rehabilitative paths outside formal prosecution.
III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM CASE LAW
| Principle | Supported by Case |
|---|---|
| Least restrictive means must be used before detention | Antic, Myers |
| Liberty interests require ongoing judicial oversight | Myers |
| Diversion is legitimate and effective | T.W., R.A. |
| Restorative justice can replace formal prosecution | L.M. |
| Therapeutic courts address root causes | McDiarmid |
| Alternatives must be considered even for serious charges | Pearson |
| Pre-trial supervision reduces risk without incarceration | S.B. |
IV. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE PRE-TRIAL MEASURES
1. Reduced Recidivism
Diversion, restorative justice, and therapeutic courts have been judicially recognized as reducing repeat offending, especially among youth and individuals with mental health or addiction issues.
2. Lower Costs & Faster Resolutions
Courts note these measures ease backlog, reduce detention costs, and provide quicker resolutions.
3. Greater Rehabilitation
Judges find alternative measures promote personal transformation, unlike detention which often worsens behavior.
4. Enhanced Fairness & Charter Compliance
Cases like Antic and Myers emphasize presumption of innocence and prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration.
5. Community & Victim Engagement
Restorative approaches give victims a voice, leading to greater satisfaction for all parties.
V. CONCLUSION
Canadian courts strongly support alternative pre-trial measures because they:
Protect constitutional rights
Promote rehabilitation
Reduce incarceration
Enhance community safety
Support victims
Improve system efficiency
The case law demonstrates that courts view alternatives not as leniency but as smarter justice, ensuring outcomes that are fair, proportionate, and effective.
RELATED Blog
comments