Peter N. Bourque

The applicant brought a Charter s. 11(b) application alleging his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The trial commenced on January 19, 2012, but was not completed until July 25-27, 2012, with further adjournment to February 28 and March 1, 2013.

The total delay from charge to projected trial completion was approximately 27 months.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and R. v. Godin, analyzing the length of delay, reasons for delay (inherent, Crown actions, accused actions, and institutional factors), and prejudice to the accused.

The court found approximately 10 months of institutional delay, which fell within the Morin guideline of 8-10 months.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for wounding the victim with a fractured skull resulting from two blows to the head.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification based primarily on clothing descriptions.

The defendant admitted being at the scene but claimed his companion, Jamie Woodrow-Skinner, was the sole assailant.

The court found the eyewitness evidence contradictory and unreliable, with most witnesses intoxicated.

The only sober witness identified the assailant as wearing dark clothing, inconsistent with the defendant's white shirt and plaid pants.

The defendant was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding identity.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE program stop on Highway 404.

The Crown alleged the accused attempted to back up the ramp to avoid the checkpoint.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on observations of impairment including odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, red face, swaying gait, and admission of consuming four drinks.

However, the court acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding the degree of impairment, finding the breath test evidence admissible but the impairment charge not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with three counts of assault—one against his stepson and two against his wife.

The Crown alleged that during the five or six days the defendant and his newly arrived wife (sponsored through an arranged marriage) lived together in Canada, he engaged in abusive behavior including pushing, grabbing, and verbal abuse.

The defendant denied all allegations, asserting that he had invested significant funds to bring his wife and stepson to Canada and had no motive to harm them.

The court found the complainant's evidence concerning but problematic, particularly regarding her motives for reporting to police.

The stepson's evidence was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies with his police statement and concerns about potential coaching.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his cousin's testimony, was not seriously shaken on cross-examination.

The court acquitted the defendant on all remaining charges.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity on March 31, 2011.

The trial was scheduled for August 8-9, 2012, resulting in a total delay of 16 months and 8 days from charge to trial.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and found that after deducting reasonable periods for intake, judicial pre-trial procedures, and counsel preparation, the actual delay was 13 months.

The court found that this delay exceeded the guidelines and that the accused suffered both actual and inferred prejudice.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on Highway 400.

The Crown's case established that the accused was speeding and changing lanes erratically.

After a roadside screening device failure, breath samples were obtained showing readings of 210 and 200 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the blood alcohol readings.

The court upheld the validity of the breath tests as taken as soon as practicable and found no Charter breach.

The accused was convicted of driving with excess alcohol under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was arrested for driving with excess alcohol after failing an approved screening device.

Following arrest, he provided his lawyer's name and two phone numbers to the arresting officer.

The officer attempted to contact the lawyer but was unsuccessful, and subsequently called duty counsel instead.

The accused spoke to duty counsel for approximately four minutes.

The central issue was whether the accused's right to consult with counsel of choice under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated.

The court found that the officer's evidence regarding her attempts to contact the accused's lawyer was unreliable and that the accused was effectively denied the right to consult with counsel of choice.

The court excluded the breathalyzer results and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE program stop.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on insufficient indicia of impairment.

Additionally, the court found two Charter breaches: the accused was not informed of his right to counsel immediately upon arrest, and he was denied his right to counsel of choice when the officer failed to facilitate contact with his own lawyer and instead directed him to duty counsel.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

A police officer observed a light-coloured van being driven at excessive speed in Stouffville, Ontario.

After losing sight of the vehicle, the officer discovered a damaged Toyota Sienna van parked on Catherine Crescent with a blown tire.

The defendant was found nearby underneath a Jeep.

The Crown's case rested on establishing that the defendant was the operator of the van.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence including the defendant's proximity to the vehicle, his appearance matching the driver's description, his statements suggesting consciousness of guilt, and evidence that keys in his possession operated the van's key fob.

The charge of driving with excess alcohol was stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v. Kienapple.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from events on April 1-2, 2010, including confinement, assault, assault causing bodily harm, mischief to property, breach of a peace bond, and obstruction of justice.

The complainant initially gave detailed video statements to police describing a prolonged assault and confinement, but later recanted in court testimony, claiming the injuries resulted from falls, drug use, and a separate altercation with a drug dealer.

The trial judge found the complainant's court testimony incredible and unreliable, while accepting the earlier police statements as credible based on corroborating evidence including photographs of extensive injuries, a 911 call, and the complainant's demeanor in the video statements.

The accused was convicted on most counts but acquitted on the obstruction charge due to insufficient evidence that the accused specifically made the statements to police.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop at an intersection.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found slumped over the steering wheel of a running vehicle at a red light, displaying signs of impairment including red glassy eyes, slurred speech, and an odour of alcohol.

The accused was arrested and subjected to breathalyzer testing, which yielded readings of 160 and 180 mgs of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breathalyzer evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that he was not properly informed of his right to counsel due to language comprehension difficulties.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) were infringed and excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the officers' observations at the roadside, and not guilty of driving with excess alcohol due to the exclusion of the breathalyzer results.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his spouse occurring on April 23 and 25, 2011.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her against a wall, struck her with his hand, and threatened her during arguments related to their separation.

The accused denied the allegations, admitting only to a slap in 2006.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was sympathetic and the bruising on her arm supported her account, the accused's testimony, though containing some difficulties and contradictions, was not significantly challenged in cross-examination.

The court concluded that reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile while having excess alcohol in his blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the officer complied with the requirement that an approved screening device (ASD) test be administered "forthwith." The defendant was detained for approximately 19 to 21 minutes after the officer formed reasonable suspicion before being given an opportunity to comply with the ASD demand.

During this period, the defendant was not informed of the reasons for detention or provided with his Charter rights to counsel.

The court found multiple Charter breaches and excluded the breath test results, leading to dismissal of the charge.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment, threatening to cause death, and breaches of probation arising from allegations made by his ex-wife during access visits to their daughter in January and February 2011.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the ex-wife, who alleged the accused damaged her vehicle, followed her, and made threatening statements.

The accused's daughter testified that the alleged threatening phone conversation did not occur as described.

The court granted a directed verdict on the harassment charge due to lack of evidence and acquitted the accused on all remaining counts, finding the complainant's credibility undermined by her emotional state regarding custody issues and her admission that she had not actually witnessed the alleged following.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five bank robberies committed by handing notes to bank tellers demanding money while falsely claiming to have a gun.

The Crown sought a concurrent sentence of six years in federal penitentiary with one-for-one pre-sentence credit for a net sentence of five years.

The defence sought a net sentence of three to four years.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of six years less enhanced credit of 1.5 to one for approximately 1.5 years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of four years and six months in federal penitentiary.

The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition and ordered a DNA sample.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, and dangerous driving.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand, resulting in a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2).

Without the breath tests and lacking sufficient evidence of impairment or a marked departure from the standard of care, the court acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol after being stopped at a RIDE program.

At trial, the defence argued that the presence of cell phones and police radios near the Intoxilyzer 8000C caused radio frequency interference (RFI), leading to a malfunction.

The court heard expert evidence on the machine's RFI safeguards but found no evidence that a malfunction actually occurred or that it would result in an artificially high reading.

The court concluded the defence's theory was speculative, failed to raise a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats following a domestic altercation with his spouse.

Both parties sustained injuries, including a broken finger for the spouse and extensive scratching on the accused.

The court found the spouse's evidence regarding the threat was contradicted by the 911 recording and that she minimized her physical aggression towards the accused.

Applying the W.D. framework and the law of self-defence, the court concluded the Crown failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence when he pushed the spouse and twisted her hand to stop her from scratching him.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.