r v. GREGORY PARENT, 2021 QCCQ 5260

Directeur of Penal and Criminal Prosecutions c. Parent 2021 QCCQ 5260 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OFÉ DE GATINEAU « Criminal and Penal Division » N° : 550-61-069208-201 DATE : June 18, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY HONORABLE JUSTICE CHRISTINE AUGER, J.P.M ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTEUR OF PENAL AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS Prosecutor v.

GREGORY PARENT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On the 30th of May 2020, Mr. Gregory Parent is intercepted for operating a modified truck on a public road and that those modifications diminish the stability or the breaking capacity of the vehicle contrary to

article 214 of the Highway Safety Code [1] , which states : « No person may put any of the following vehicles into operation: […] (2) a road vehicle intended to be operated on a public highway that has undergone alterations, including to the chassis, the body, a system or a mechanism, which may reduce its stability or braking capacity, or that was transformed into another type of vehicle; or [Underlines added] […] [ 2 ] Essentially, paragraph 2 of

article 214 of the Highway Safety Code requires approval from the Société d’assurance automobile du Québec at all times when modifications are made to a vehicle that uses a public road, whether it be to the chassis, the body, or any other mechanism and system that diminish the stability of the vehicle or its braking capacity. [ 3 ] The Defendant Gregory Parent was intercepted on May 30th 2020, on highway 50 in Gatineau by the Surêté du Québec.

The police report [2] states that the officer observed the absence of mud guards and was of the opinion that vehicle appeared too high. [ 4 ] After stopping and inspecting the vehicle, the officer observes that in addition to the absence of mud guards, the tires are a little wider than the fenders and under the vehicle, he sees a black steel « block» approximately 3.5 inches on top of the original block measuring approximately 1 inch that make the trucker higher. [ 5 ] The police report concludes that the elevated suspension affects the stability of the vehicle when shocks must be absorbed.

QUESTIONS IN LAW [ 6 ] Has the Prosecution established the evidence according to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the essential elements [3] of the alleged infraction? [ 7 ] In the affirmative, has the Defendant submitted a defence of due diligence prior to the interception? ANALYSIS Has the Prosecution established the evidence according to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the essential elements of the alleged infraction?

[ 8 ] The essential elements of the infraction are : - Use of vehicles intended for use on a public highway. - Alterations to the chassis, body, system or mechanism. - Reduction of stability or braking capacity. - Absence of authorization from the SAAQ before and after the modifications [4] . [ 9 ] The Defendant explains that on the day of the interception he was headed to his cottage to do some renovations. [ 10 ] His vehicle is a 2019 Ford, F-series, F150, fully equipped [5] , 4x4 Supercrew.

It was purchased directly from the Kanata Ford dealership in Kanata, Ontario on March 19, 2020, in the amount of 58,288.54 [6] . [ 11 ] At the time of the interception, the Defendant had owned the Ford truck for a little over two months. He had made no modifications whatsoever to the truck since the purchase. [ 12 ] The vehicle has a FXR package that is sold as a stock model . The Defendant explained that this FXR package feature improves load capacity and suspensions, he purchased this model because it is « work truck » and the truck handles very well.

The Defendant would have absolutely no reason to question the characteristics of the components of a well-known F-150 stock vehicle , sold by a reputable Ford dealership. [ 13 ] The Court has no reason to set aside any of the credible and documented evidence presented by the Defendant. [ 14 ] The Prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the first element required, that is, the modifications made to the vehicle after the purchase.

The evidence presented shows that the Ford F-150 purchased by the Defendant is a stock model sold in Canada and that no modifications were made to the vehicle by the Defendant. [ 15 ] In addition, the police officer’s report is founded upon a very subjective conclusion that the stability of the vehicle is affected. [ 16 ] Because of the Court’s finding, there is no reason to analyze the evidence further on the other essential elements nor any defence of due diligence. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: ACQUITS the Defendant of the infraction as charged. __________________________________ JUGE CHRISTINE AUGER, J.P.M.

M e Marie-Pier Gauthier Prosecutor of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr. Grégory Parent Self-represented Date of hearing : February 19th 2021