Peter N. Bourque

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on January 30, 2018.

A York Regional Police officer observed the defendant entering an intersection as the light turned red, conducted a traffic stop, and detected the smell of alcohol on her breath.

The defendant provided a failed Approved Screening Device (ASD) test and was arrested.

Two breath samples at the station showed readings of 110 milligrams.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the stop and the admissibility of the breath test results under the Charter.

The court found the officer credible, accepted that there was a valid reason for the traffic stop and reasonable suspicion of impairment, and admitted the breath test evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams) following a traffic stop for speeding and failure to stop at a red light.

The Crown sought to establish that the defendant had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test and that no Charter breaches occurred.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on multiple grounds: the officer's credibility regarding the smell of alcohol, denial of right to counsel of choice, and arbitrary detention.

The court found the officer's evidence credible, determined no Charter breaches occurred, and convicted the defendant of operating a motor vehicle with 130 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after being found asleep in a parked vehicle and registering a fail on an approved screening device (ASD) test.

The Crown's case relied on evidence from two police officers.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to demand the ASD test due to significant credibility issues and contradictions in his testimony.

The court further found that the defendant's Charter rights to counsel were infringed, as there was no reliable evidence that he received legal advice despite claims by police.

The court excluded the evidence of refusal under the Grant analysis, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, speeding, and stunt driving following a high-speed pursuit at 113 km/h in a 50 km/h zone at 01:01 hours.

The Crown established reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on excessive speed, observed unsteadiness, blurry eyes, and odour of alcohol.

The court found no Charter breach regarding the delay between arrest and rights advisement, and found that while there was a technical breach of the right to counsel of choice, the breach was largely technical and the evidence was admissible.

Breath test results showed 177 mg/100 ml at 02:21 and 168 mg/100 ml at 02:44, with toxicologist opinion placing blood alcohol at minimum 160 mg/100 ml at time of driving.

The defendant was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol, impaired driving, dangerous driving, and stunt driving.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving following a traffic stop.

Officer Slessor observed the defendant's vehicle weaving between lanes at high speed on Keele Street and subsequently detected signs of impairment during the roadside interaction.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

However, the court found that while the defendant's driving conduct was careless, it did not rise to the level of moral blameworthiness required for a dangerous driving conviction.

The defendant was acquitted of dangerous driving but convicted of impaired driving.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

The primary issue was whether the defendant's Charter rights under section 10(b) were breached when police conducted the investigation and breath demand in English without providing a Vietnamese interpreter.

The defendant argued that his limited English proficiency prevented him from fully understanding and exercising his rights to counsel.

The court examined the defendant's actual comprehension of his rights through video evidence and testimony, considering factors including his ability to communicate in English, his responsiveness to police directions, his ability to ask questions, and his demonstrated understanding of his rights to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 10(b) rights and convicted the defendant of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant pleaded guilty to taking a material benefit from a person involved in the sex trade contrary to section 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, who was in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship with the victim, encouraged her to engage in sex work, assisted with website advertisements, received gifts of clothing and jewelry from her earnings, and assaulted her on multiple occasions, including one incident where he struck her in the face with his fists while in possession of a knife.

The Crown sought four and a half years custody; the defence sought one to eighteen months.

The court imposed a sentence of 1000 days custody less 329 days of pre-trial custody credit (1.5:1 ratio), resulting in a net sentence of 671 days in a provincial reformatory, followed by 36 months probation with conditions including no-contact with the victim, a 100-meter distance requirement, weapons prohibition, and mandatory participation in counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.

The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

The Crown sought permission to proceed with trial using a non-accredited interpreter in Shona for the defendant, who is a native of Zimbabwe.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

The court applied the legal framework requiring the Crown to rebut the presumption of incompetence for non-accredited interpreters on a balance of probabilities.

The proposed interpreter had significant experience including accreditation with the Immigration and Refugee Board, criminal trial experience, and fluency in multiple languages.

The court found the Crown had discharged its burden and permitted the non-accredited interpreter to provide services.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on January 13, 2018.

A York Regional Police sergeant observed the defendant's vehicle stopped in a live lane of traffic, followed it, and conducted a sobriety check.

The defendant provided a breath sample on an approved screening device (ASD) which registered a "Fail," leading to arrest and a breath demand at the police station.

The defendant's blood alcohol readings were 140 and 130 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood.

The court rejected multiple Charter challenges, including arguments regarding the presumption of identity, the calibration of the breath testing device, reasonable grounds for the ASD demand, and alleged breaches of rights to counsel and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

An applicant sought judicial review of a firearms officer's refusal to issue a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) under the Firearms Act.

The officer based the refusal on twelve occurrence reports spanning 2004 to 2015, demonstrating a pattern of violent and unpredictable behaviour, despite only one criminal conviction.

The applicant argued the refusal was unreasonable, but the court found the officer's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the applicant's propensity for violence and lack of judgment in escalating situations to violence.

The court upheld the refusal, finding it was desirable in the interests of public safety that the applicant not possess firearms.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a rear-end motor vehicle collision on March 8, 2018.

The Crown alleged the defendant was impaired by alcohol based on observations of the accident witness, police officer, and breath technician.

The defendant testified that the collision resulted from distraction caused by text messages from his wife, and that he had consumed approximately five beers over several hours at a dinner with friends but felt no effects of alcohol.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving, driving while prohibited, obstructing police, and failing to surrender an insurance card.

This was the accused's third impaired driving conviction.

The court applied the totality principle and sentenced the accused to 180 days in custody (45 days net after pre-sentence credit), a 5-year driving prohibition, 12 months of probation, and a $1,000 fine.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

She challenged the breath test results, arguing that the tests were not taken as soon as practicable due to delays at the police station, and that the presence of gum in her mouth may have affected the accuracy of the readings.

The court found that the delays were reasonably explained by booking procedures and the need to test another subject.

The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the effect of the gum on the test results.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a civilian complaint about erratic driving.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter challenge under sections 8 and 9, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and delayed the breath demand.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the officer had sufficient grounds based on indicia of impairment, including staggering and slurred speech.

The court accepted the breath readings and toxicologist report, finding the accused guilty on both counts.

The defendant was stopped for speeding and subsequently investigated for drinking and driving.

He failed a roadside screening test and later provided breath samples over the legal limit.

At trial, the defendant sought to exclude the breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) rights due to a delay in administering the roadside test and police allegedly steering him to duty counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding no breaches, and entered a finding of guilt for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and dangerous driving following a single-vehicle collision in a rural area on September 17, 2017.

The Crown sought acquittal on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding how the vehicle entered the ditch.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant was operating the vehicle between 01:30 and 03:00 on September 17, 2017, while having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The dangerous driving charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with breach of recognizance (violation of house arrest) and failure to stop for a peace officer as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Crown proved the defendant was operating the vehicle and that police were pursuing him.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant failed to stop as soon as reasonable, given the short timeframe between when police activated emergency lights and when the defendant stopped in a plaza.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's intent to evade police while operating the motor vehicle.

The defendant was convicted on Count 1 (breach of recognizance) but acquitted on Count 2 (failure to stop for peace officer).

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol after failing an Approved Screening Device test and subsequently providing a breath sample of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant brought multiple Charter challenges, including challenges to the lawfulness of the traffic stop, the timing of the ASD demand, compliance with section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, and alleged violations of rights to counsel.

The court rejected all Charter applications and found the defendant guilty of the offence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol (160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood) and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so, both offences occurring on March 7, 2017.

The defendant had an extensive criminal record including four previous drinking and driving convictions between 1995 and 2003, and seven previous driving while disqualified or prohibited offences between 1998 and 2013.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (concurrent on both charges), a lifetime driving prohibition, and 36 months probation with conditions including mandatory alcohol treatment and counselling.