6 There are two decisions which have assisted me in determining the nature and degree of proof required on an application of this kind. In the Attorney General of Manitoba v. Petersen et al (1992) C.R. 91-01-10728, Krindle J. dealing with a similar application said at p. 8: "The requirement of satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt does not convert this hearing into a criminal trial and does not restrict the court to the evidentiary and procedural requirements of a criminal trial. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean in these circumstances that the crown or the judge must act as a defence counsel who has instructions to take issue with each and every aspect of the crown's case, challenging every piece of evidence and eliminating every speculative possibility. An absconding accused has no right to expect or demand that type of diligence on his or her behalf."
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.