Ontario court says it won’t review decision to deny Peter Nygard bail

TORONTO —An Ontario court has declined to review a decision to deny Peter Nygard bail while the former fashion mogul appeals his sexual assault convictions and sentence.

In a ruling released Friday, a Court of Appeal for Ontario judge said the judge who dismissed Nygard’s bail application last month made no arguable errors in assessing his case, and there would be “no reasonable chance of success should a review be ordered.”

Nygard’s lawyers had argued the bail judge “unfairly discounted” the value of a new medical report and “failed to appreciate” the arrangement that Nygard was proposing for his release on bail.

They also argued the bail judge failed to appreciate the strength of one of the grounds for appeal related to the admission of expert testimony on the effects of trauma.

The bail judge found his appeal appeared to be “weak” and that he had a greater incentive to flee since he faces charges in other jurisdictions.

The 83-year-old Nygard was found guilty of four counts of sexual assault last year after multiple women came forward with allegations dating from the 1980s until the mid-2000s. His prison sentence amounts to a little less than seven years, after credit for the time he already spent in custody before and during trial.

Nygard’s legal team is challenging both his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge made several errors, including admitting the expert evidence on trauma.

At the bail application hearing last month, Nygard’s lawyers submitted a new medical report they said had not been ready in time for the sentencing process.

However, Appeal Court Justice Lene Madsen found the new report relied heavily on self-reported information and that his health needs had been taken into account during sentencing.

Nygard’s lawyers argued last week that the report was prepared by a geriatric medicine specialist who examined Nygard for more than four hours.

Madsen made no errors regarding the medical report and it was open to her to find the report “did not change the health landscape,” the court said in Friday’s ruling.

“She carefully considered and accurately captured the content of those reports. She simply expressed skepticism over the content and impact of that evidence for purposes of release,” Associate Chief Justice Michal Fairburn wrote.

Madsen had also raised issues with Nygard’s proposed bail plan, which would have him live in a Winnipeg home now owned by one of his employees.

Nygard’s lawyers argued Madsen misunderstood the proposal, and that the man who owns the Winnipeg residence wasn’t meant to act as a surety but simply to confirm that the court could move on the $1 million property if Nygard breached the conditions of his bail.

In her ruling, Fairburn wrote that regardless of the surety matter, Madsen’s analysis had focused on the right issue: whether Nygard had shown he would surrender himself into custody if he was released on bail.

“She gave reasons for why she concluded that he had a greater incentive to flee now than when he was detained pending trial. She also made specific reference to his deep pockets, to his historical non-compliance with court orders, and to his lack of connection to Winnipeg,” Fairburn wrote.

As for the expert evidence on trauma, Madsen did not make any errors in assessing its significance, Fairburn wrote.

The bail judge “ultimately concluded that, weighing all of the factors, the public’s confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by the applicant’s release pending appeal,” she wrote.