Peter N. Bourque

The accused was charged with dangerous driving following a 12-kilometre pursuit along Highway 407 in York Region.

The Crown alleged the accused drove at excessive speeds (130-145 km/h in a 100 km/h zone), weaved between lanes, drove on the left shoulder, struck the concrete median, and failed to stop for police emergency lights and sirens for approximately 3 kilometres before being forced to stop.

The accused was initially charged with impaired driving, which was withdrawn.

The court applied the legal test for dangerous driving, examining whether the accused's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.

The court found the totality of the driving behaviour—not a momentary lapse but a pattern of dangerous conduct over a significant distance in medium traffic—constituted dangerous driving.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood).

The Crown relied on expert toxicology evidence to establish the accused's blood alcohol level at the time of driving, as the breath tests were taken more than two hours after the alleged offence and the statutory presumption of identity could not be applied.

The defence raised evidence of bolus drinking—specifically, that the accused consumed 1 to 2 ounces of Sambuca liqueur (38% alcohol) immediately before driving.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no large quantities of alcohol were consumed within 15 minutes of driving, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of operation.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a minor complainant.

The Crown alleged that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant in his parents' apartment between February 10, 2010 and March 7, 2010, when she was 15 years old.

The defendant denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies with her police statement, and implausible elements.

Notably, the complainant and her mother continued to interact cordially with the defendant after the alleged assault, including sending him a get-well card following his knee surgery.

The court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was stopped at a RIDE program and charged with driving with excess alcohol.

The Crown sought to prove the defendant's blood-alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the legality of the ASD demand, the maintenance of the ASD device, and the lawfulness of his detention.

The court found no breach of sections 8 or 10(b) of the Charter regarding the ASD demand and device maintenance.

However, the court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter due to arbitrary detention, as the officers failed to explicitly consider factors other than the elevated breath readings when deciding to detain the defendant.

The court convicted the defendant but did not impose a stay of proceedings, finding that a reduced sentence was the appropriate remedy for the Charter breach.

The defendant, Reliable Wood Shavings Inc., was charged with four offences under section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from the death of Glen Gallinger, an employee who was asphyxiated while attempting to dislodge sawdust from a silo at a customer's facility.

The court found that the defendant failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect its worker.

The defendant's prescribed procedure was unsafe and impractical, the written instructions were defective, and the defendant failed to address the inherently dangerous conditions at the worksite despite having knowledge of the hazards.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4, with count 1 stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences under section 122 of the Securities Act for trading in securities without registration and in violation of two cease trading orders from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendant operated Strategic Gifting Group, which solicited donations for charities, remitted 10% to the charities, and distributed shares in Dixon Perot & Champion Inc. to donors, representing inflated valuations.

The defendant had previously been sentenced to 21 months and 3 years for related securities violations.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months consecutive to existing sentences, along with probation and restitution obligations, applying the totality principle to avoid a crushing cumulative sentence while maintaining deterrence and denunciation.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, leaving the scene of an accident, and theft of property following an incident on January 22, 2012.

The defendant was hired to transport a photo booth for two business partners.

A dispute arose over compensation.

When the defendant attempted to leave with the booth, a friend of the business partners placed himself on the hood of the vehicle.

The defendant drove slowly to escape, and the friend fell off and was injured.

The court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, accepting the necessity defence for the dangerous driving charge and finding the defendant had an honest colour of right claim regarding the booth.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop in the early morning hours of October 14, 2012.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing readings of 179 and 173 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on two grounds: (1) the breath technician failed to record the expiry date of the alcohol standard solution used in the Intoxilyzer 8000C device, and (2) the tests were not taken as soon as practicable as required by statute.

The court found that the technician's testimony regarding the suitability of the standard solution was sufficient, and that the total delay from roadside stop to breath testing was reasonable and within statutory requirements.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant brought a Jarvis application seeking to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants on the grounds that the CRA's audit function had improperly transitioned into a criminal investigation, thereby breaching his Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The defendant was charged with two counts of fraud and four counts of tax evasion related to a GST refund scheme involving a dormant company.

The court found that the defendant lacked standing to bring the application, as he had no legitimate privacy interest in the mail box or bank account that were the subject of the search warrants, having fraudulently misappropriated the identity of the company.

Alternatively, the court found no breach of the Jarvis doctrine, as the predominant purpose of the inquiry remained audit-focused until after November 4, 2005, when the bank requirement revealed the connection between the defendant and the fraudulent refunds.

The court admitted all evidence.

The accused was charged with assault and two counts of threatening following an altercation with his sister at the family home.

The complainant alleged that after an argument over a cell phone, the accused struck her and pushed her down the stairs.

The accused testified that his sister was the aggressor, striking their mother, and that he only separated them without striking anyone.

The court found serious discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, including her failure to mention being pushed down stairs to police and inconsistencies regarding an alleged arranged marriage.

The photographic evidence showed more serious injuries to the accused and his mother than to the complainant, supporting the defence narrative.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was sentenced for indignity to human remains and obstructing police in connection with the death and disposal of a six-week-old child.

The child died under mysterious circumstances, and the accused and the child's father disposed of the remains in a dumpster behind a convenience store, then misled police during the investigation.

The accused received 27 months in custody with credit for 23 months of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 4 months, followed by 3 years of probation with various conditions including substance abuse counselling, life management skills training, and ongoing contact with Children's Aid Society.

The defendant was stopped at a RIDE program and subjected to roadside screening tests.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test evidence showing 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, alleging multiple breaches including failure to provide rights to counsel, failure to make the second ASD demand forthwith, and failure to make the breath demand as soon as practicable.

The court found two Charter breaches and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in an acquittal on the charge of driving with excess alcohol.

The defendant pleaded guilty to eight criminal offences including possession of ephedrine for export, selling a natural health product without a licence, possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $1.3 million, money laundering of $8.9 million, and tax fraud against the Canadian government.

The offences occurred over an extended period from 2007 to 2010 and involved a sophisticated, large-scale commercial operation.

The defendant was the directing mind of the enterprise, not merely a courier.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in a provincial reformatory, followed by two years probation and a ten-year firearms ban, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the defendant's guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, first-time offender status, and family support.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 110-118 mg/100 ml of alcohol.

The court found a Charter breach under section 8 because the arresting officer failed to adequately address the issue of mouth alcohol before administering the approved screening device test.

Although the officer was aware of the strong odour of alcohol and recent consumption, he incorrectly believed a 10-minute waiting period was sufficient and did not make further inquiries.

The court excluded the breath evidence as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of an automobile and care and control with excess alcohol.

The Crown alleged the defendant had a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant testified he consumed only two drinks and re-entered his vehicle solely to retrieve his phone to call a tow truck after discovering two flat tires.

The court found the defendant not credible, rejected his evidence regarding alcohol consumption and intent, and found he had been operating the vehicle within ten minutes of police arrival.

The court concluded the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle with a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and that despite the flat tires, there remained a realistic risk of danger.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts, with the care and control with excess alcohol count stayed pursuant to the Keinapple principle.

The accused was charged with six counts of assault upon his spouse and one count of assault upon his child, allegedly occurring between June 2005 and November 2010.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant spouse, who alleged repeated assaults occurring approximately twice monthly throughout their marriage.

The defence denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to exaggerations, inconsistencies with police statements, and lack of corroboration from medical professionals despite claims of severe injuries.

The corroborating witnesses (the complainant's brother and mother) provided contradictory accounts and failed to mention key incidents in their initial police statements.

The accused testified credibly and consistently, denying all allegations.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a single-vehicle accident.

The Crown proceeded on the basis of care and control rather than actual operation.

The court found that while the accused was in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition and was impaired, the vehicle was truly inoperable due to severe structural damage that prevented it from moving or being started.

The court distinguished between an "immovable" vehicle (stuck but potentially drivable) and an "inoperable" vehicle (incapable of being driven).

Finding the vehicle inoperable and thus incapable of creating a realistic risk of danger to persons or property, the court acquitted the accused despite the presumption of care and control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following an incident in the early morning hours of July 27, 2011.

The accused admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol reading of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

However, the accused denied having care and control of the vehicle, claiming he was merely sitting in the driver's seat to smoke a cigarette.

The accused also brought a Charter challenge under sections 7 and 24, alleging that police negligence in obtaining and preserving CCTV footage from a Tim Hortons location constituted a breach of his right to make full answer and defence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting his credibility and finding that he had care and control of the vehicle.

The court also dismissed the Charter motion, finding that the police conduct did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that any prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights was not sufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants on the basis that the information presented to the issuing justice was insufficient.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and theft related to a series of automobile thefts from driveways and garages in the Greater Toronto Area.

Police obtained a general warrant for covert entry into a storage locker and a subsequent search warrant.

The court examined the affidavit supporting the warrants and found that despite numerous unsupported opinions and speculative statements by the affiant, there remained sufficient factual basis for the issuing justice to have granted the warrants.

The application was dismissed.

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

At trial, the arresting officer testified about the roadside screening device failure but failed to give evidence that a formal breath demand was made before the breathalyzer tests at the station.

The court held that evidence of a valid breath demand is a statutory pre-condition to the admissibility of the Certificate of Analysis.

Alternatively, taking breath samples without a demand violated section 8 of the Charter, and the evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was found not guilty.