The Crown should've done whatever it needed to keep the accused in jail pending trial. He's the dangerous offender, after all. Instead, the Crown felt it expedient to jail the victim of the dangerous offender just in case she didn't show up. You don't have to be an expert in Charter rights to see that's not just.

As to Charter rights, consider Section 10.

"10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful."

I get it that the Crown wanted to keep a dangerous individual off the street. I support that goal. But under no circumstance may the Crown violate the Charter rights of that dangerous offender's victim in pursuit of that goal. To do so heaps violation on violation.