Peter N. Bourque

The defendant was charged with failure to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device (ASD) following a RIDE stop.

After seven attempts to provide a suitable sample, the defendant was arrested.

The Crown proved that the officer made a valid demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, that the ASD was functioning properly, and that the defendant deliberately chose not to blow with sufficient force despite being capable of doing so and receiving clear instructions.

The defendant's credibility was undermined by his initial lie to the officer and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The court found the defendant guilty, rejecting his assertion that he believed he was blowing sufficiently.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being found asleep in the driver's seat of his vehicle at a traffic light.

The Crown relied on observations made by the arresting officer at the roadside, including the smell of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness.

However, observations made at the police station approximately 23-25 minutes later showed no signs of impairment, and the breath technician's observations approximately 1 hour and 23 minutes later similarly showed no impairment indicators except for watery, red-rimmed eyes.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, noting that the discrepancy between roadside and station observations, combined with the absence of any evidence of actual vehicle operation, created reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the symptoms observed at the roadside could have been attributable to extreme tiredness rather than alcohol impairment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in contravention of a lifetime firearms prohibition order imposed in 2003 following a conviction for conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance.

The offence occurred in May 2011 when the defendant, while on a tour of Europe with associates, temporarily possessed an automatic weapon at a commercial shooting range in Poland and posed for photographs.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment and a probation order prohibiting association with Hells Angels members.

The defence sought a fine.

The court imposed a $3,000 fine, finding the circumstances unique and distinguishable from more serious cases involving circulation of illegal weapons or furtherance of criminal enterprise.

The defendant was charged with possession of 5 oxycodone pills and two counts of possession of prohibited weapons (a lighter with a spring-loaded blade and nunchaku sticks) found during a search warrant execution at his residence.

The Crown bore the burden of proving possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant testified that he was unaware of the weapons and that the pills belonged to a plumber friend who had lost them while working at the home.

The friend testified and confirmed the pills were his prescription medication.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and accepted that the pills were not in his possession.

Regarding the weapons, the court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the items could have belonged to any of the numerous people who had lived in or visited the home over the years.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14, and invitation to sexual touching arising from a secretive sexual relationship with the complainant between 1993 and 1995 when she was aged 11 to 13 and he was 25 to 27.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's blanket denial based on internal inconsistencies including his admitted awareness of the complainant's crush, his capacity for secretive relationships, and implausible claims about limited contact with corroborating witnesses.

The complainant's testimony was found credible and corroborated by her childhood friend.

The accused was convicted on three counts; a fourth count was stayed by the Crown.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a girl aged 11 to 13 years old between 1993 and 1995.

The Crown alleged a pattern of sexual abuse including sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming he was merely a "big brother" figure to the children in the household.

The court found the complainant credible and her testimony corroborated by a former friend who witnessed inappropriate physical contact and the defendant and complainant's secretive behaviour.

The defendant's evidence was rejected due to significant credibility issues, including his admitted heavy drug use, his demonstrated capacity for secretive relationships, and his implausible denials regarding the complainant's expressed feelings.

The court convicted the defendant on three of four counts.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 11 and 13 years old between 1993 and 1995, when the defendant was between 25 and 27 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defence conceded that no consent defence under section 150.1 of the Criminal Code applied.

The trial turned on credibility and the burden of proof.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by her friend's observations and attendance at the defendant's home.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as lacking credibility due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The Crown stayed one charge at the conclusion of trial.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and contained misleading statements.

The trial judge conducted a Garofoli application to assess whether the warrant should have been issued.

After excising a reference to an unsubstantiated admission by an occupant of a vehicle stopped near the defendant's home, the court found that sufficient grounds remained to justify the warrant's issuance.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter section 8 challenge and found the defendant guilty of both counts.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 120 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant raised two Charter issues: (1) that his section 8 and 9 rights were violated when the officer stopped his vehicle without requisite authority, and (2) that a video recording of him using the toilet in the police station cell breached his section 8 rights.

The court found the initial stop was lawful based on reasonable grounds for speeding and that the subsequent investigation was conducted lawfully.

However, the court found that the video recording of the defendant using the toilet constituted a breach of his section 8 right to privacy.

Despite this breach, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings as it did not meet the "clearest of cases" threshold, and would not exclude the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was found guilty.

The applicant sought costs following the withdrawal of a provincial offence charge.

The applicant had been issued two defective tickets for failure to surrender his licence and failure to have two plates.

After the initial tickets were quashed, a third ticket was issued but the applicant claimed he never received notice of it.

He was convicted in absentia and fined, leading to suspension of his driver's licence.

Upon appeal, the Crown withdrew the charge.

The applicant then sought costs for the reinstatement fee and paralegal fees, arguing a Charter breach.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award costs after charge withdrawal and that the circumstances did not constitute abuse or flagrant impropriety warranting a costs remedy.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant.

The assault occurred when the defendant, aged 62, followed the complainant to her vehicle after her work shift, removed her car keys, and kissed her against her will while touching her lower back.

The defendant had a significant criminal history including prior sexual assault convictions and violence against women.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-trial house arrest, resulting in 7 months and 24 days of incarceration, followed by 3 years probation with strict conditions including DNA sampling, firearms ban, and sex offender registry compliance.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following observations by a York Regional Police Sergeant.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving based on the defendant's erratic driving, evasive conduct, and physical indicators of impairment.

However, the court found a breach of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights due to an unacceptable delay of 5 to 6 minutes in providing rights to counsel.

Despite this breach, the breath test evidence was admitted under the R. v. Grant analysis.

The defendant was ultimately found not guilty of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding impairment, though the breath test showed a blood alcohol level of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with assault on a police officer causing bodily harm and threatening after an altercation at a bar in Richmond Hill.

Police officers and liquor inspectors attended the premises to conduct compliance inspections.

The defendant was approached on the dance floor and led to a quieter area where he was asked for identification.

The defendant became agitated and allegedly head-butted the officer, causing injury to the officer's mouth and teeth.

The defendant was arrested and subsequently made threatening statements.

The court found the defendant not guilty of both charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was dealing with a police officer, and that the defendant's actions constituted lawful self-defence against an unlawful assault by the officer.

The defendant sought to strike his guilty plea to sexual assault, arguing that the plea was not voluntary and that he did not fully understand the consequences.

The defendant claimed language barriers and pressure from counsel influenced his decision to plead guilty on the eve of trial.

The court found that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The defendant had received comprehensive written instructions, was assisted by a Russian interpreter, and had undergone a thorough plea comprehension inquiry.

The court rejected the application to strike the guilty plea.

The accused, a 62-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his granddaughter.

The alleged incident occurred during a family gathering at the complainant's home.

The complainant testified that the accused entered her bedroom at night and placed her hand on his exposed genitals on two occasions.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that he never entered the complainant's bedroom.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including material discrepancies with her prior statements, inconsistencies with corroborating witnesses regarding timing and details, and concerns about potential reinforcement of her testimony through discussions with her parents.

The court also noted the implausibility of the alleged conduct given the crowded household, the presence of multiple adults, the cluttered bedroom layout, and the accused's health limitations.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment under section 264(3) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant through voicemail messages over several days in July 2013, following an encounter at church where the complainant made clear she wanted no further contact.

The Crown sought to prove that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her personal safety.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought an application for a directed verdict.

The court found that while the complainant was clearly upset and wanted the contact to cease, she did not testify that she feared for her safety.

The court granted the directed verdict and acquitted the accused, finding that the essential element of fear for safety required by section 264 had not been established by the Crown's evidence.

The Crown sought to call three witnesses (Jason Chapple, Angelo Paggliariccia, and Nicola Marchese) at the sentencing hearing of the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so.

The witnesses, represented by counsel, applied to quash the subpoenas.

The defendant supported the application.

The Crown sought to establish that the offence was committed in association with a criminal organization (Hells Angels) under section 718.2(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown had not established that the witnesses could provide material evidence beyond the already-admitted facts and that allowing their testimony would constitute a fishing expedition.

The subpoenas were quashed.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an incident at a shopping plaza parking lot in Richmond Hill during a child custody exchange.

The complainant alleged the defendant struck her with a ski during a heated dispute over access to their daughter.

The defendant denied any physical contact.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the mechanics of the alleged assault to be unclear and internally inconsistent.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his girlfriend who witnessed the incident, was that he did not strike the complainant and had no physical contact with her.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) test, the court found the defendant not guilty, as the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Reliable Wood Shavings Inc., was convicted of four offences under section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on July 14, 2009, in which an employee died.

Counts 1, 3, and 4 were stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle, with conviction registered on count 2 only.

The employee, Glen Gallinger, suffocated after falling into a truck box while attempting to dislodge stuck wood shavings using an unsafe procedure prescribed by the defendant.

The court found the defendant guilty of failing to ensure safe work procedures and failing to take reasonable precautions for worker protection.

At sentencing, the Crown sought $140,000 while the defendant sought $40,000-$70,000.

The court imposed a fine of $115,000 with two years to pay, emphasizing general deterrence and the seriousness of workplace fatalities.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and one count of breach of probation.

The offences involved repeated touching of the vaginal areas of two young girls, ages 8 and 9, while babysitting them, in breach of a probation order prohibiting contact with children under 16.

The accused had a prior criminal record for similar sexual offences.

A psychological assessment indicated heterosexual pedophilia with moderately high reoffending risk.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a custodial sentence of 4 years was appropriate.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 4 years for the sexual interference counts and 2 years less one day for the breach of probation, along with DNA sampling, a SORIA order, and orders under sections 161 and 109 of the Criminal Code.