r v. X, 2023 QCCQ 4810

LSJPA — 2323 2023 QCCQ 4810 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 540-03-016140-229 DATE: June 15, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE PATRICK-OLIVIER MAILHOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ His Majesty the King Prosecutor v.

X Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G E M E N T ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: No person shall publish the name of a young person or a child or any information that may identify him as having been dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , or as being a victim or witness in connection with an offence alleged to have been committed by a young person, except by judicial order.

Every person who contravenes these dispositions is liable to prosecution (sections 75, 110 (1), 111 (1) and 138 Y.C.J.A.). [ 1 ] X, the accused, faces the following charges: On or about April 12, 2022, in Town A, district A, in committing an assault on A, did uses a weapon, committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided by

section 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] There is an admission by the defense as to the identity of the accused, the date, and the location of the events. [ 3 ] The evidence presented is based on the testimony of the complainant. [ 4 ] The accused testified in his defence. The accused was 16 years old at the time of the events and 17 years old at the time of his testimony. CONTEXT [ 5 ] The complainant, A, has worked in an intermediate resource for people with mental health or behavioural problems for over 10 years. [ 6 ] He performs several daily tasks with the resident, administering medication, ensuring that the premises are clean, etc.

[ 7 ] He has known the accused since his admission to the resource a few months before the date of the events. [ 8 ] On April 12, 2022, certain events took place that led to the laying of charges. THE CROWN’S VERSION [ 9 ] According to the complainant's version, while he was administering the medication and snack in the evening around 7-8 PM., the accused mentioned that he was not happy with his snack. He wanted a chocolate muffin, while the complainant offered him some fruits.

The accused said that he was malnourished and mistreated. [ 10 ] The accused called the police using the telephone provided by the resource to complain. Not satisfied with the Police's response time, the accused became agitated. [ 11 ] The accused then went in and out of the building and activated the doorbell, which disturbed the other users.

The accused went outside, and the complainant followed him to prevent him from continuing to press the doorbell. [ 12 ] The accused then decided to walk on the sidewalk and in the courtyard. [ 13 ] In the courtyard, the accused tried to take the bike of Y, another resident of the resources. The complainant asked him to let go Y’s bike. [ 14 ] Y allegedly went outside the building when he saw what was happening with his bike, and a quarrel broke out between the accused and Y. [ 15 ] The accused dropped the bike and took a rake in his hands. He began banging on the garage door with the rake and making threats.

The complainant describes the rake as having a fairly long wooden handle and metal teeth. [ 16 ] The complainant then put his hand on the rake to grab it and prevent the accused from hitting the garage door. [ 17 ] The accused then hit the complainant with 2 kicks to the legs and private parts and 2 punches to the face and chest. [ 18 ] The complainant then dropped the rake and the accused hit him 3 times with the rake on the legs and side of the body. [ 19 ] The accused dropped the rake and returned to the front of the building. [ 20 ] At that time, the accused is still agitated.

The complainant and his father, who had just arrived on the scene, tried to calm the situation. [ 21 ] The complainant's father stepped in between them because, according to the complainant, the accused wanted to continue hitting him. [ 22 ] The accused tried to get around the father. He was moving in the direction of the complainant. The father then tried to physically control the accused. [ 23 ] When the police arrived, the accused went directly to speak to them.

THE ACCUSED’S VERSION [ 24 ] The accused testify that on April 12, 2022, he went back to the resources from his community time around 5 PM. [ 25 ] He asked for supper and the complainant answer that TikTok is more important than his supper. [ 26 ] The accused answer by saying that: you must feed me, or I will call the Police. [ 27 ] The accused called 911. He was informed that his call was not a priority. He went outside to wait for the Police. [ 28 ] The complainant then pushes him to go back inside.

The accused push the complainant back to create space. [ 29 ] Then, the complainant took the rake and try hit the accused in the legs.

The accused jump over. [ 30 ] The complainant then punches the accused in the stomach 6-7 times and the accused block the punches by kneeing him in the chest. [ 31 ] The accused took his own bike and try to leave but then decide to put his bike back on the building. [ 32 ] At that time, the accused testify that Y said the cops are here, that the complainant was putting up his chest to intimidate him and that the father of the complainant came and strangle him on the floor. [ 33 ] He then ran to talk to the Police. [ 34 ] The accused affirm that the complainant version is not true and that he never hit the complainant with a rake.

[ 35 ] During the cross-examination, the accused remember that after calling the police, he went to play video game for about thirty minutes before going outside. It was then that the events began. ANALYSIS [ 36 ] The presumption of innocence, it should be remembered, is the basis of any criminal trial. Thus, the Crown bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the constituent elements of the offense(

s) attributed to any accused. [ 37 ] Under no circumstances should the defense bear the burden of proving their innocence. [ 38 ] Also, when faced with contradictory versions, as is the case here, the Court should not choose the version that seems to it the most probable. [ 39 ] To this end, the superior courts have established a process to guide the Court in such circumstances. These principles are found in the judgment of the Supreme Court R. v.

W. (D.) [1] . [ 40 ] The prosecution and the defense assert that the present situation is a case of the application of W. (D.). [ 41 ] Therefore, the analysis must be done in three stages. [ 42 ] If the judge believes the version of the facts presented in the accused's testimony, he must acquit him.

If not, the judge proceeds to the second step. [ 43 ] Thus, if the testimony of the accused nevertheless raises a reasonable doubt considering all the evidence presented, he must acquit. [ 44 ] If it does not, he proceeds to the third and final step, which is to ask whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence he is charged with. If it does, the judge must find the accused guilty. [ 45 ] In the present case, the accused having testified in his defense, the Court must first assess his testimony and if it raises a reasonable doubt, it must acquit the accused.

Analysis of WD criteria 1 and 2 [ 46 ] In analyzing the accused's testimony, the Court takes into consideration that the accused is a teenager. [ 47 ] The Court does not believe the version delivered by the accused and it does not raise any reasonable doubt. [ 48 ] The accused's version is riddled with implausibility. [ 49 ] For example, the accused states that a discussion concerning the dinner took place at 5 PM and that, in a first version, he called the police and went outside.

In a second version, he states that he played video games in his room for about thirty minutes after calling the police at 5:15 PM and going outside. The police arrive around 8 PM. [ 50 ] Whether the first or second version is correct, the accused would have spent approximately 2h30 to 3 hours outside. [ 51 ] According to the accused, the events recounted outside lasted about 15 minutes to a maximum of 30 minutes.

The accused offers very few details about the rest of his actions outside during this period. [ 52 ] The accused's version lacks detail and precision. [ 53 ] The Court does not believe that it is plausible that the victim who testified before the Court suddenly became violent and hit the accused, as the latter claims.

The accused even asserts that, prior to the events, they had a okay relationship. [ 54 ] According to his testimony, the accused has told his version of events to no one since the events of April 12, 2022, and claims that the police refused to take his statement. [ 55 ] The explanations given by the accused regarding the refusal of the police to take his statement are not credible.

Even more so as the accused claims to have shown a scratch to the police and that they refused to take his statement. [ 56 ] Although it reaches this conclusion, the Court must be convinced of the youth's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt considering all the evidence. [ 57 ] In this context, the Court must analyze W.(D.) third criteria.

Analysis of WD criteria 3 [ 58 ] The Court must analyze the reliability and credibility of all the evidence to determine whether the elements constituting the alleged offence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 59 ] The Court consider that the complainant's testimony is highly reliable.

[ 60 ] His testimony is precise. He explains many details and does not hesitate in his answers. He is calm in his testimony and remembers many details of the events. [ 61 ] The defence raised certain contradictions between the testimonial evidence and the statement made to the police on April 12, 2022, concerning the blows received and the movements around the building.

The Court notes that the complainant provides additional details and explanations that do not constitute contradictions. [ 62 ] The entire situation described concerning the bicycle, Y's presence and the damage to the garage door is logical and credible. [ 63 ] The pain described because of the blow is consistent with the facts recounted by the complainant. [ 64 ] The Court notes that the complainant's version in his testimony and in his statement to the police officer is similar. This also allows the Court to note the reliability and credibility of the complainant.

DECISON [ 65 ] For all these reasons, the Court finds that the prosecution has discharged its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 66 ] The accused intentionally used a rake to injure the plaintiff. The plaintiff's injuries were a foreseeable consequence in the circumstances. [ 67 ] It is not disputed that a rake can be a weapon within the meaning of

Section 2 the Criminal Code . FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 68 ] DECLARES the accused guilty of count number one. PATRICK-OLIVIER MAILHOT, J.C.Q. Me Alexie Desnoyers-Rivest Attorney for Prosecutor Me Nadia Jamieson Attorney for Defendant Date of hearing: March 30, 2023 POM/pc