Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard arrives at the Toronto courthouse on Oct. 20, 2022.Tijana Martin/The Canadian Press
A justice with Ontario’s Appeal Court has reserved her decision on whether Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard should get bail as he tries to appeal his sexual assault conviction at the country’s top court.
Justice Jill Copeland heard arguments at a bail hearing for Hoggard on Tuesday morning, weeks after the Hedley frontman began serving his sentence.
Crown prosecutor Catherine Weiler asked Copeland to quash the bail motion, saying the proposed grounds of appeal Hoggard wants to put forward at the Supreme Court of Canada are weak and “unlikely to gain traction.”
Arash Ghiassi, a lawyer for Hoggard – who was not at the hearing – argued that there is no public interest in keeping the musician behind bars, and the top court has questions of national importance to consider if it decides to hear the case.
In June 2022, a jury found Hoggard guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm against an Ottawa woman. He was also found not guilty of the same charge and of sexual interference, a charge that refers to the sexual touching of someone under 16, in relation to a teenage fan.
He was later sentenced to five years in prison, and granted bail within hours of the sentencing pending an appeal at Ontario’s top court.
Hoggard’s lawyers appealed on four grounds, including that the trial judge erred by admitting the evidence of clinical psychologist Lori Haskell on the neurobiology of trauma.
In a unanimous ruling, Ontario’s Appeal Court found the trial judge had erred in admitting the expert’s evidence in part because it risked being misused by the jury to reason backward that the trial’s two complainants had experienced a sexual assault.
However, the trial judge corrected any potential misuse in answering the jury’s questions, and as a result, “there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice,” the court found. The court also found the trial judge did not make any errors regarding the other grounds raised in the appeal.
Hoggard began serving his sentence after that Appeal Court decision was handed down last month.
His application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, filed last week, argues that the Appeal Court failed to apply the proper test in deeming the trial judge’s error a “harmless” one.
Ghiassi, his lawyer, said in court Tuesday that it is “clearly of a national interest” for the top court to offer clarity on how that test should be handled, and that courts across the country have applied the law inconsistently.
The Crown prosecutor said the assessment on whether a trial judge’s error is “harmless” is so case-specific as to be unlikely to garner interest at the highest court.
“It does not clearly surpass the ‘not frivolous’ criteria and is unlikely to gain traction at the (Supreme Court),” Weiler said of Hoggard’s application.
Weiler added that the more serious the crime, the more serious the risk that public confidence in the justice system could be undermined by an offender’s release on bail.
Ghiassi asserted there would be no public safety risk to Hoggard’s release, noting he has two sureties and a long history of bail compliance.
“The only question is whether it is necessary in the public interest to detain Mr. Hoggard, and it is not,” he said.
Ghiassi added Hoggard is in solitary confinement in a correctional institution due to threats to his safety.
Citing a recent information note prepared by the superintendent of the institution, the Crown lawyer said protective custody is voluntary and inmates in protective custody are provided the same out-of-cell time as the general population.
Copeland said she expects to make a decision on bail some time this week.