r v. DOUGLAS B, 2022 QCCQ 9610

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions c. Bédard 2022 QCCQ 9610 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF SAINT-MAURICE LOCALITY OF LA TUQUE “Criminal and Penal Division” No.: 425-61-011022-226 DATE: November 30, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: GHISLAIN LAVIGNE, P. J. P. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS Prosecutor v.

DOUGLAS BÉDARD Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The manager of the Maxi supermarket called the police because a man inside the store was refusing to wear a mask despite the guidelines and government measures in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 2 ] The defendant admitted that he was there and that he was not wearing a mask. He felt that he was justified not to wear one because masks are useless and only kill people.

He also argued that he was not bound by the orders. [ 3 ] Because the facts are admitted, the Court will determine, point by point, whether the defence raised by the defendant can lead to his acquittal. ANALYSIS AND EVIDENCE [ 4 ] The prosecution filed the statement of offence with the abridged report as exhibit P-1. These documents were drafted by Officer Charles Pellerin. Below are some excerpts: [ translation ] Call from the manager of the Maxi grocery store in La Tuque saying that a client was refusing to wear a mask ... I arrived at the scene and found a man matching the individual’s description.

I also recognized him because I have had to intervene with him in the past ... I approached him and spoke with him in English, asking him why he was not wearing a mask. Mr. Bédard then began an absurd political speech saying that Mr. Justin Trudeau is not the head of Canada and that the real head said that wearing a mask was illegal in Canada and he had the proof on YouTube. … I also spoke with the manager, who told me that this was not the first time Mr. Bédard had entered the store without a mask and that he was warned each time, but never listened. [ 5 ] The defendant testified in his defence.

He admitted that he knew why he was arrested and the substance of the offence alleged against him. [ 6 ] First, he argued that he learned through his readings that during the Spanish Flu, masks caused the deaths of 50 million people. [ 7 ] He argued that, even today, masks are killing people. He is categorical: “Forcing mask is killing people”. That being said, he does not offer any medical or scientific evidence to support his claim. The Court also wonders whether a connection can be made between the surgical masks sold since 2020 and the ones people used in 1918.

The Court has not been favoured with any evidence to this effect. This first argument has no merit in law.

[ 8 ] As a second argument, Mr. Bédard claims that in any event, masks are pointless against COVID-19. They do not protect against viruses or bacteria. He argued that this is even written on the mask boxes and packaging. Despite this claim, however, no tangible medical evidence was adduced to support his remarks and no expert was heard by the Court. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. [ 9 ] He then explained that he wore a mask on occasion in the past, but that it made him dizzy and confused. He used the word “dizzy” to describe his physical state when he wears a mask.

He said that he does not want to take any chance because he has blood pressure concerns and certain heart issues. Once again, despite the defendant’s claims, no medical evidence to prove the defendant’s physical limitations was submitted before the Court. [ 10 ] Finally, in his arguments, he said that orders are not laws, which means he is not bound by them.

When asked to explain this argument and instruct the Court on the difference between the application of a law and that of an order adopted under the enabling authority of the Public Health Act , the defendant answered that he is bound only by laws of which he personally approves.

He also said that Prime Minister Trudeau and his government are nothing but : (and I quote his words) « bullshit and they should all be in prison. » [ 11 ] The prosecutor submitted that the evidence is uncontradicted and has not been rebutted by the defendants’ arguments. [ 12 ] The defendant’s arguments are personal opinion and have no scientific value. The Court does not assign any probative value to them. The defendant’s position and allegations against the State, Prime Minister Trudeau, and the undersigned are not legally conclusive.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] CONVICTS the defendant of the offence; [ 14 ] SENTENCES the defendant to pay a $1,000 fine plus all the applicable fees and contributions provided for by law; [ 15 ] GRANTS the defendant 90 days to pay. __________________________________ GHISLAIN LAVIGNE Presiding Justice of the Peace Mtre Marc-Olivier Bergeron Crown prosecutor Douglas Bédard Defendant Date of hearing: September 29, 2022