Peter N. Bourque

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, and mischief following a late-night incident on October 16, 2024, involving an argument with his spouse, consumption of alcohol, and a minor collision between his ATV and his spouse's vehicle on their rural property driveway.

The Crown proved the defendant's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit through breath samples taken at 3:32 a.m. and 3:58 a.m., both showing truncated readings of 170 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The defendant was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol but acquitted of impaired driving and mischief due to insufficient evidence of impairment at the time of driving and lack of intent regarding the property damage.

The defendant was charged with impaired (by drug) care and control of an automobile.

The court assessed whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle and whether their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by drugs.

The court found that the defendant was in care and control based on the presumption in Section 320.35 of the Criminal Code and the realistic risk of danger.

The court also found the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by narcotic analgesics, relying on observations from a bank employee, police officers, and the detailed 12-step evaluation by a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE), whose expert opinion was accepted.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant, charged with possession of cocaine and heroin mixed with Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked credible grounds for the vehicle search, leading to a breach of the defendant's section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel was breached due to a significant delay in facilitating access to a lawyer and the officer's repeated elicitation of incriminating information after the right was invoked.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that all physical evidence (drugs) and utterances made by the defendant should be excluded from the trial.

The defendant was found guilty of operating a conveyance with a high blood-alcohol concentration (160 mg in 100 ml of blood) after a rear-end collision, with her 12-year-old daughter as a passenger.

She had no prior criminal record but a previous "warn" for alcohol.

The Crown sought 120 days custody, an 18-month license suspension, and 18 months probation.

The defence sought a 1-year driving prohibition and a 30-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 30-day conditional sentence, an 18-month driving prohibition, and 18 months probation with alcohol counselling, emphasizing the need to elevate penalties for impaired driving cases, especially with aggravating factors like an accident and a child passenger.

The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess alcohol after a rear-end collision.

She brought a Charter application to exclude breath test results, arguing her right to counsel (s.10(a) and 10(b)) was infringed because it was not provided earlier during the motor vehicle collision investigation.

The court found that the police officer was credible and was not conducting a drinking and driving investigation until a later point when a stronger odour of alcohol was detected.

The court determined that no detention for Charter purposes occurred until the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand was made, and rights were provided timely thereafter.

Even if a detention occurred earlier, the right to counsel would have been suspended during the preliminary investigation.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (threatening death or bodily harm) and possession of ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order.

The court found the witness's testimony regarding the alleged threat unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential motives, leading to an acquittal on the first charge.

However, regarding the ammunition charge, the court accepted expert testimony that the modified bullets met the definition of "ammunition" under the Criminal Code, despite not being test-fired, distinguishing the case from R. v. Wilson.

The defendant was found guilty of possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The defendant, H.K., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a person under 16.

The defence argued that a second alleged meeting between the defendant and the complainant, during which the assault purportedly occurred, did not happen.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the second meeting inconsistent and unreliable, particularly concerning the absence of corroborating text messages she claimed existed.

Due to these significant discrepancies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant of all charges.

The accused responded to an online escort advertisement placed by an undercover police officer posing as a sex worker.

During text communications the officer disclosed that the escort was under 18, yet the accused negotiated sexual acts, price, and arranged a meeting at a hotel while bringing cash and a drink requested in the messages.

The accused testified that his intention was only to conduct research for a book about self-esteem and sex trade workers and that he suffered from erectile dysfunction.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation as not credible, finding the communications and conduct demonstrated a clear sexual purpose.

The accused was convicted of child luring under s.172.1(2) and communicating to obtain sexual services from a person under 18 under s.286.1(2), while the sexual exploitation count under s.153 was dismissed.

The defendant, Wilfredo Hernandez, faced multiple criminal charges, some of which he pled guilty to (dangerous driving, driving while prohibited, evading police) and others proceeded to trial (uttering threats, break and enter, taking a child in contravention of a custody order, threat to cause death to child).

The court assessed witness credibility, including the complainant's attempt to influence another witness.

The defendant was found not guilty of taking a motor vehicle without consent and break and enter a dwelling house.

He was found guilty of uttering threats to the complainant, taking the child in contravention of a custody order, and threatening to cause death to the child.

The court emphasized the intent to deprive the custodial parent of possession of the child.

Two young persons were charged with attempted robbery with a firearm arising from an incident on February 24, 2019, in which one defendant approached a vehicle with a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money while the other defendant was present at the scene.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage.

The defendant N.H. testified that he was present but claimed he did not participate in the robbery and was unaware the firearm was in his possession.

The court found both defendants guilty of attempted robbery with a firearm, rejecting the defendant's assertion that he was merely a bystander and finding his presence at the passenger side of the vehicle and subsequent possession of the firearm demonstrated participation in a joint enterprise.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a December 6, 2018 incident where a civilian witness observed erratic driving on Highway 403 and called 911.

Police attended at an ice arena parking lot where the defendant was located.

The defendant failed a roadside screening device test and was arrested.

Breath samples revealed readings of 340 and 330 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the detention, the timing of the ASD demand, the provision of rights to counsel, and the reasonableness of grounds for arrest.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the defendant guilty of both offences.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a motor vehicle stop.

The Crown alleged the defendant possessed 40 grams of cocaine found in a vehicle he owned and was operating.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the vehicle search under the Charter and argued there was reasonable doubt as to his possession of the drugs.

The court found the vehicle search was lawful as a search incident to arrest and under the Highway Traffic Act inventory search provisions.

However, on the merits, the court found the Crown had not proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the drugs were located in an area accessible to the passenger, there was no evidence of knowledge or control by the defendant, and no other indicia of drug trafficking were present.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE check on April 21, 2016.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 168 and 145 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath samples on multiple Charter grounds, including allegations that the officer failed to properly calibrate the ASD device, failed to make the demand forthwith, failed to administer the test as soon as practicable, and failed to document reasons for rejecting an intermediate sample.

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol following a collision investigation in the early morning hours of December 20, 2017.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the Intoxilyzer breath test results, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10.

The trial judge found that the defendant's section 10(b) rights to counsel were breached because the arresting officer failed to provide the rights to counsel in a language the defendant could understand, particularly the right to counsel of choice.

Although the defendant had some English proficiency, he clearly experienced significant difficulty understanding the informational component of his rights.

The officer was aware of the language barrier but did not take adequate steps to address it, such as using available translation services.

The trial judge noted the contrast with the breath technician, who proactively arranged for interpretation services.

The trial judge also found it significant that the defendant twice requested to speak to his brother, which the officers did not follow up on, potentially indicating an attempt to exercise his right to counsel.

Applying the test from R. v. Grant, the trial judge excluded the breath test results and the defendant's utterances to the breath technician, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with assault arising from an incident in a condominium parking lot during a child access visit.

The complainant alleged the defendant pulled her hair during a confrontation.

The defendant admitted to pulling her hair but claimed it was an act of self-defence to prevent the complainant from reversing her vehicle a second time, which had already run over his foot and endangered his son.

The court found the defendant's version of events was more consistent with CCTV video evidence than the complainant's testimony and acquitted the defendant, finding his actions constituted lawful self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of an automobile after being found asleep in a parked vehicle at a McDonald's parking lot in Newmarket on August 26, 2018.

The Crown presented evidence of the defendant's impaired state through observations by McDonald's staff, EMS personnel, and police officers.

The defendant testified that she had consumed alcohol only after parking the vehicle and that any impairment was the result of "bolus drinking" occurring after she had ceased to have care and control.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence and found that she was impaired at the time she drove through the McDonald's drive-through and continued to be impaired thereafter.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired care and control.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to possess a restricted firearm (Colt 45) under section 92(3) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, a 19-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, attempted to purchase the firearm from a legal gun owner through communications and meetings with an undercover police officer.

The transaction was not completed as the defendant was arrested at the agreed point of sale with cash in his pocket.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 24 months.

The court imposed a 20-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, followed by 24 months probation.

The accused was charged with three child luring offences arising from a police sting operation involving an online escort advertisement.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused was the person exchanging text messages with an undercover officer.

The court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, as there were other plausible theories inconsistent with guilt.

Furthermore, applying *R. v. Morrison*, the court held that even if identity were proven, the conflicting information about age in the advertisement and text messages was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed the person was under 18 or was wilfully blind to that fact.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant was charged with three child luring offences arising from a police undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to text messages exchanged with an undercover officer posing as a young escort.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who engaged in the text message exchange.

Additionally, even if identity had been established, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed or was willfully blind to the fact that the person was underage, given the conflicting information in the advertisement and messages.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death following a motor vehicle collision on Highway 404 on October 25, 2018, in which the victim, a hospice nurse, was killed.

The defendant was travelling at approximately 169 kilometres per hour with a blood alcohol concentration of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (double the legal limit) when she collided with the victim's vehicle.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment in a federal penitentiary, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The sentence reflects the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, with the court emphasizing the prevalence of impaired driving in York Region and the need for substantial sentences to deter such conduct.