Bail revoked after another breach of court-ordered conditions for Fraser Valley music instructor convicted of criminal harassment of female students
Details of Wednesday's Crown application to revoke bail protected under publication ban, but Bevin van Liempt remains behind bars in advance of sentencing
In a somewhat unusual circumstance, a judge agreed to a publication ban on the evidence and arguments at a Crown application in court Wednesday (Nov. 5, 2025) to revoke Bevin van Liempt's bail after yet another breach of court-ordered release conditions.
Publication bans come in several forms, some are automatic while some can be applied for, usually by the public prosecutor. There is already publication bans under section 486 of the criminal code protecting the names of van Liempt's two underage female victims of criminal harassment. But it was van Liempt himself who asked for a discretionary section 517 ban to be put in place on the hearing in provincial court in Abbotsford Wednesday (Nov. 5, 2025) morning.
Both Crown and the judge seemed uncertain why he applied for it or if it should be denied due to the open court principle. There is also the fact that the trial is already over except for sentencing and there are publication bans in place protecting the victims' names. In the end, it was concluded that the law states if an accused applies for a section 517 ban on a bail hearing the court must impose it.
The ban means simply that it cannot be reported what evidence was put forth by the prosecutor in the application to revoke his bail, what the nature of the latest breach allegation is, the reasons for the judge's decision, or the arguments made for or against the application by van Liempt who is self-represented.
What can be reported is van Liempt's name, the charges, all that has previously come out in court that was not subject to publication bans, and the outcome of Wednesday's hearing. That outcome is that the judge did revoke van Liempt's bail so he will remain at the Surrey Pretrial Centre, at least until a video appearance in a week and possibly until his next sentencing dates Jan. 28 and 29.
Brief timeline of releases, arrests, bail being revoked
Jan. 6 - Bevin van Liempt is rearrested for breach of release conditions mid-trial for criminal harassment of a girl in Abbotsford, and he is charged with that breach and a new charge of criminal harassment of a Chilliwack victim
Jan. 14 - His bail is formerly revoked
Feb. 26 - He abruptly pleads guilty, is released pending sentencing
March 1 - He posts a 40-minute selfie video discussing details about the case in violation of release conditions, is arrested, sent back in jail
March 13 - Some time between March 1 and this day he is released again
June 5 - He is arrested, charged two more breaches
June 10 - His bail is formerly revoked
Oct. 20 - His sentencing hearing turns into a bail hearing, he is released
Oct. 31 - He is rearrested for contacting a victim via on Oct. 29
Nov. 5 - Bail is revoked.
Nov. 19 - Tried to revisit bail hearing but judge shuts it down. Date fixed for Dec. 19 to hear Charter applications. His application to vary no-contact orders approved so he can serve notices of civil claim on the mothers of his victims.
Dec. 17 (scheduled) - Judge agreed to hear his Charter applications.
What's wrong with section 517 bans on publication?
- Openness is the rule, secrecy the exception:
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that court proceedings are presumptively open. The open-court principle is a constitutional imperative under section 2(b) of the Charter because it enables public scrutiny and maintains confidence in the justice system. Any limit must satisfy the Dagenais test, which is a legal standard for determining if a publication ban is warranted. To impose a ban, a court must find that the order is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the administration of justice and that the "salutary effects" of the ban outweigh the "deleterious effects" on rights like freedom of expression. - Mandatory secrecy conflicts with Charter values:
Section 517 creates automatic secrecy whenever an accused requests it. That reverses the constitutional presumption of openness without any individualized balancing. In effect, section 517 treats publicity as a threat rather than as the safeguard of justice that it is. - Transparency serves the administration of justice:
Bail decisions are not determinations of guilt. They are about risk management and the presumption of innocence. Public understanding of those decisions is essential to confidence in the system, and shielding the process fosters speculation and distrust.
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social