To respond to some of the issues you have raised, let me say the following:
- Arraignments never happen immediately. Bryant has not even had his first court date yet! Rest assured he will be arraigned later.
- There does not need to be a bail hearing if the accused is released by the police. The police are perfectly entitled to release someone with or without conditions by requiring them to appear in court at a later date. This happens all the time in Canada. See PART XVI of the Criminal Code.
- It is not typical to perform substance/alcohol testing on an individual involved in an accident (including one which involves a death). The only reason they would do this is if they have some reason to believe the person was intoxicated. For example, if there was an odour of alcohol on Bryant’s breath, and he was stumbling around drunk, they might have compelled a breath sample from him. When there are no indicia of impairment, police do not normally perform breath/substance testing.
- As for the fail to remain charge, from what I’ve heard, Bryant called 911. It does not actually matter that he merely left the scene. The Criminal Code offence requires him to have left the scene with the intention of avoiding criminal or civil liability. By calling 911 and reporting the incident, a person cannot be said to have been intending to escape liability.

Please do not jump to conclusions, and have some faith in our justice system. It’s way too early to be speculating.

We got law students scooping the major press?

We don’t know all the details about what happened, but it’s unlikely that the defence could be claimed given the provocation clause (s. 26) that any assault here would be unprovoked (s. 34) or that he did not commence the assault (s. 35), but this could change as the story evolves. I’m pretty certain that defence counsel will try to make a case here first though, because there is much more case law for these provisions.

The remaining provision available to the defendant would be s. 37 (R. v. Mcintosh), because it does not require determination of who was the aggressor according to R. v. Grandin, (2001)(B.C.C.A.):

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
[emphasis added]

There are also the defence of property provisions that can be used, but also not likely to fly in a case like this arising out of what appears to be road rage.

A few points about distinguishing characteristics of this provision – there is no defence for a reasonably apprehended assault or objective element, so an actual assault must be taking place (R. v. Whynot, (1983)(N.S.C.A.); cited in R. v. Lavallee).

The amount of force used cannot be more than necessary to prevent the assault (R. v. Mulder, (1978)(Ont.C.A.); cited in R. v. Herbert).

As you’ve probably discerned at this point, the case hinges around whether the amount of force used is “excessive.” There is criminal liability under s. 26 if the force exceeds what is necessary,

Excessive force
26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Determination of whether this was excessive is highly fact specific, and we really don’t have all the information right now.

What I’m more interested in is what Canadian law has to say about acceptable use of force when defending one’s self or another against an assault. Tell us, Omar!

Legalities aside, I can tell you that the more I learn about what happened, the more I’m convinced: if some guy on the street flipped out on me and tried to reach or climb into my car, I would have been terrified, and I would have done whatever I had to to get him off.

“Welcome to Toronto, where we’ll try not to run you over with our car.”

Why did he speed up? Why did he leave his car and run into a hotel?

This is the guy that ran the courts in Ontario. Does anyone really think he’s going to get fair treatment?