Peter N. Bourque

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine following an arrest by York Regional Police officers who were conducting surveillance on a suspected drug dealer.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent search of his vehicle.

The court found that the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant.

The evidence relied upon by the arresting officer was based primarily on an unreliable observation by another officer who claimed to have witnessed a "hand-to-hand" drug transaction.

The court found the arrest and searches to be unlawful Charter breaches and excluded all evidence obtained subsequent to the breach under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was convicted after trial of impaired (by drug) driving causing bodily harm contrary to s. 255(2) of the Criminal Code and failure to comply with a demand for a urine sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found stopped in a driveway while impaired and, when police arrived, his vehicle backed up slowly and struck a police officer, causing bodily harm to the officer's knee.

The defendant refused a lawful demand to provide a urine sample.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 7 months imprisonment and a 3-year driving prohibition, while the defendant sought a suspended sentence with a fine and increased licence suspension.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 60 days for the impaired driving causing bodily harm and 30 days for the failure to provide a urine sample, to run consecutively, plus a 2-year driving prohibition.

A police sergeant was charged with assault causing bodily harm after using force to arrest a highly intoxicated individual with a lengthy criminal history and known propensity for violence.

The sergeant employed a "grounding" technique that resulted in the arrestee's face striking the ground, causing a laceration to the cheek.

The court found that while the sergeant had reasonable grounds to arrest and was entitled to use necessary force, the force employed was unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful.

The arrestee had become compliant before the sergeant applied force, and the sergeant's stated justifications for the use of force were contradicted by video evidence.

The court convicted the sergeant of assault causing bodily harm, finding that the injury met the statutory threshold for bodily harm.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop in a parking lot.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results.

The defendant, self-represented, raised a Charter breach under section 10(b) regarding the right to counsel.

The court found that the defendant had clearly requested to speak to his counsel of choice, Reid Rusonik of the Reid Pinkofsky firm, but the officer failed to adequately facilitate this request.

Although the defendant eventually spoke to duty counsel, the officer's failure to make reasonable efforts to contact the defendant's counsel of choice constituted a serious Charter violation.

The court excluded the breath test evidence as a remedy and acquitted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving by drug causing bodily harm and refusal to provide a bodily substance sample.

The defendant drove his vehicle into a stranger's driveway and fell asleep at the wheel.

When police attended, the defendant's vehicle rolled backward, pinning an officer between the two vehicles and causing injury to the officer's knee.

A drug recognition expert concluded the defendant was impaired by cannabis and a central nervous system depressant.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm and refusal to comply with a demand for a bodily substance sample.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter s. 10(b) application, finding his rights to counsel were properly upheld and that no second consultation with counsel was required before the bodily substance demand.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

A police officer encountered the defendant twice on the morning of May 20, 2016: first at 02:57 with no signs of impairment, and again at 04:35 when a roadside breath test was administered and failed.

The defendant was arrested and breath tests conducted at 07:02 and 07:24 showed readings of 170 and 150 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood respectively.

The Crown relied on a toxicologist's report to establish the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of driving, which was based on the presumption of no bolus drinking within 15 minutes prior to the incident.

The defence argued that the presence of an alcoholic beverage in the vehicle's centre console, combined with the rising odour of alcohol and the time gap between driving and testing, raised a reasonable doubt regarding bolus drinking.

The court found the defendant's testimony credible and accepted that she did not engage in bolus drinking, thereby accepting the toxicologist's report and finding the defendant guilty.

The Crown charged two members of the Men's Fire, a group within the Six Nations community, with assault for forcibly removing a lawyer from a meeting at the Haudenosaunee Development Institute offices.

The defendants claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code, arguing they were acting pursuant to traditional Haudenosaunee governance to remove the complainant from reserve territory.

The court found that while the defendants had a subjective belief they were acting in accordance with traditional governance, the defence of property did not apply because: (1) the defendants did not have peaceable possession of the property given the political conflict; (2) the complainant had a lawful entitlement to be present as an invitee of the HDI; and (3) the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances, as there was no emergency, alternative remedies were available, and the action was politically motivated rather than necessary for community protection.

Both defendants were convicted of assault.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile while impaired and having a blood alcohol limit exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant's vehicle was found stuck in sand on the shoulder of a deserted road near Kleinberg.

The defendant was standing in a field approximately 50-60 feet from the vehicle, stating he was waiting for a ride.

The Crown sought to prove care and control based on circumstantial evidence and the defendant's proximity to the vehicle.

The court found that while the Crown established reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time of police arrival.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control and driving with excess alcohol care and control following a dispatch report of an impaired driver.

An officer located the defendant's vehicle in her driveway with the defendant slumped over the steering wheel.

The defendant claimed she had entered the vehicle only to retrieve her purse after consuming two glasses of wine upon arriving home.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence and found she had entered the vehicle with intent to put it in motion.

The court also rejected a Charter s. 10(b) rights argument regarding a 20-minute delay before rights to counsel were provided, finding the delay justified by legitimate medical concerns regarding a possible diabetic emergency.

The defendant was convicted of both charges, with the excess alcohol charge provisionally stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop for driving without lights.

The defendant, a native Russian speaker with conversational English ability, challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing he was denied his Charter rights to counsel due to language barriers.

The arresting officer initially recognized language issues and called for a Russian-speaking officer, but subsequently decided not to use interpretation services.

The court found a serious breach of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights, as he was not meaningfully informed of his right to counsel and his subsequent request for legal advice was ignored.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court excluded the breath test evidence and acquitted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of assault, threatening, and sexual assault against his wife spanning from 2003 to 2013.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the viva voce evidence of the complainant, who described a pattern of physical and sexual abuse during their marriage.

The defendant denied all allegations and testified that he would leave the house during arguments.

The court found the complainant's evidence largely uncorroborated, internally inconsistent, and lacking in credibility.

The defendant's evidence was forthright and not seriously shaken in cross-examination.

The court determined that the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The defendant was charged with theft of a complainant's money and possession of stolen property.

The defendant admitted to using the complainant's credit and debit cards to make purchases totaling $1,207.43, but claimed the complainant had consented and given her the cards as gifts.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as implausible, finding that the timing, frequency, and nature of the card usage, combined with the significant age difference and the complainant's medical condition, demonstrated the defendant did not have consent.

The court found the defendant guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property but acquitted her of theft of the cards themselves due to insufficient evidence regarding how she obtained them.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on July 9, 2016.

The defendant challenged the officer's reasonable suspicion to demand an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test and argued that the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on observed driving patterns and the defendant's admission of consuming alcohol.

The court also found that the timing of the breath tests complied with statutory requirements, including a reasonable delay for the defendant to speak with duty counsel.

The defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 140 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile with excess alcohol and impaired care and control following his discovery asleep in his vehicle in his driveway.

The defendant challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, arguing inadequate section 10 rights due to language barriers and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances including erratic driving reports, the defendant's condition, and odour of alcohol.

While a Charter breach was found regarding the failure to provide rights to counsel in Tamil, the evidence was not excluded as the defendant received legal advice and the breach was minor.

The defendant was found in care and control of the vehicle and guilty of impaired driving.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on December 31, 2015.

The defendant challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and sought to exclude the breath test results.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including slow driving, driving without lights, a wide turn, failure to move to the side of the road when emergency lights were activated, and the smell of alcohol.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (160 mgs per 100 milliliters of blood).

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop on May 25, 2016.

The defendant alleged several Charter breaches and sought to exclude breath test results.

The principal issue was the extent to which police must attempt to facilitate contact with counsel of choice before offering duty counsel as an alternative.

The court found no breach of the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, as the defendant had expressed willingness to speak to duty counsel if his preferred counsel could not be reached, and the officer made reasonable efforts to contact the preferred counsel before offering the alternative.

The breath test results were admitted into evidence, and the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of charges for delay.

The charges comprised two separate series: firearms and drug offences laid on January 21 and 26, 2015, and conspiracy charges laid on November 19, 2015.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 237, which introduced presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court found that the Crown's decision to consolidate the separate charges and defendants into a single proceeding, combined with inadequate disclosure management and lack of urgency, resulted in unreasonable delay for the initial charges.

The court stayed 32 charges related to the firearms and drug offences but dismissed the application regarding the conspiracy charge, which fell just below the presumptive ceiling.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences arising from interactions with the complainant on October 20, 2015 and November 10, 2015, including assault, unlawful confinement, sexual assault, and threats.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence to be significantly undermined by contradictions, memory lapses, and inconsistencies regarding key details, particularly concerning the nature of contact (water versus spittle) and the sequence of events.

The defendant's credibility was also compromised by lies told to police, though his explanations for some events had a ring of truth.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault on October 20, 2015 (for holding and pushing the complainant into a car) and breach of recognizance on November 10, 2015.

The defendant was acquitted of unlawful confinement on October 20, 2015, and all charges arising from November 10, 2015 (sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement), as the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of breach of probation and was found not guilty of four additional counts following a three-day trial.

The defendant had been charged with child pornography offences in 2013 and 2014, and was released on conditions prohibiting attendance at public parks where children under 16 were present.

The breaches involved attending Canada's Wonderland, the Toronto Zoo, and a public park with his girlfriend's two children.

The Crown sought two years less a day; the defence sought 30 to 45 days.

The court imposed a sentence of five months imprisonment concurrent on each count, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including counselling and employment requirements.

The defendant was convicted of defrauding the Ontario government social assistance plan of $18,636.00 over three years and pleaded guilty to defrauding a Visa cardholder of $7,944.75 while awaiting trial on the first offence.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-10) that removed the conditional sentence option for offences with a maximum term of 14 years or life imprisonment.

The defendant argued this violated sections 12 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that the removal of the conditional sentence option does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.