r v. Chidinma Chibuzo, 2023 QCCM 82

R. c. Ihejirika 2023 QCCM 82 MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE VILLE DE MONTRÉAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No.: 120-305-321 DATE: April 11, 2023 ____________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MARTINE LECLERC JMC ____________________________________________________________________ THE KING Prosecutor v.

Chidinma Chibuzo Ihejirika Defendant ____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The defendant is charged with willfully committing mischief between September 9, 2019, and September 09, 2020, by obstructing, interrupting, or interfering with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property, that is, a dwelling in an immovable located at [...], in Montreal. [ 2 ] Furthermore, seven statements of offence were issued to the defendant between November 5, 2019, and September 8, 2020, under the Ville de Montréal's By-Law concerning noise (R.B.C.M. c.

B-3). [ 3 ] The defendant presented an application to exclude evidence and to stay proceedings, arguing that her right to freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [1] and the Charter of human rights and freedoms [2] [ Quebec Charter ] had been infringed. [ 4 ] At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to hold a joint trial for the charge of mischief and the statements of offence. [ 5 ] Furthermore, the evidence gathered during the voir dire on the application will be filed on the merits, if appropriate. [ 6 ] The statements of offence were filed into evidence en liasse under P-1.

I. Evidence on voir dire Ms. Zhixia Rond [ 7 ] She lives in unit 401 in the building located at [...], in Montreal. [ 8 ] She explained that her living room and bedroom share a wall with unit 416, which is occupied by the defendant. [ 9 ] She bought the condo in 2010, but because of work, she moved in only in September 2019. [ 10 ] As soon as she moved in, she met the defendant in the hallway where the defendant asked her whether she had heard noise.

She answered that she had not. [ 11 ] The defendant then asked her if she would call the police if she ever heard noise. [ 12 ] The witness did not answer but found the question strange. [ 13 ] Three weeks after she moved in, she heard very loud noises coming from the defendant’s unit, mainly from her bedroom, despite it being past 10 p.m. [ 14 ] She stated that she called 911 about eight times after 10 p.m. [ 15 ] When shown the 911 call log, she confirmed that she may have called before 10 p.m. but maintained that she called 911 seven or eight times.

[ 16 ] She confirmed that she never had a physical altercation with the defendant, adding that the defendant never got any closer to her than two metres. [ 17 ] She heard shouts, banging on the ground, and the defendant yell, "You are all evil". [ 18 ] In October 2019, she bumped into the defendant and asked her why she made noise.

The defendant told her that she could make noise because she was praying. [ 19 ] In mid-October, early November 2019, as she was taking out her trash, the defendant came halfway out her door and stared at her silently. [ 20 ] The witness was afraid and informed the building manager, but he said there was nothing he could do. [ 21 ] In November 2019, she sent a formal notice, through her lawyer, to the owner of the unit rented by the defendant so that she would intervene with the defendant and make the noise stop. [ 22 ] She described the noises coming from the defendant's unit as follows: chants, stomping on the floor, very loud banging on a musical instrument and against the walls. [ 23 ] She recognized the defendant's voice when she yelled, "You should burn in hell". [ 24 ] She would then name her and the other tenants calling them demons and wishing them a horrible end, in these terms, "I wish you will burn in hell". [ 25 ] The defendant would say that the police officers could do nothing and that they were, "Demons and they will burn in hell". [ 26 ] She stated that these noises could last from 45 minutes to an hour in the evening, in the middle of the night, and even during the day when she stayed home.

It happened almost every day. [ 27 ] She could not sleep more than one or two hours a night. [ 28 ] Because she is a surgeon with the CHUM, she even had to ask her boss for half-days so she could rest and, because the noise also happened during the day, she had to sleep at work. [ 29 ] She tried to stay with friends or family so she could sleep. [ 30 ] She claims that she called 911 in February and March 2019. [ 31 ] After one call to 911, she went out to the hallway to tell the police officers that they had to do something. [ 32 ] In the fall of 2020, the defendant added very loud classical music and did not open the door to the officers when they went to her unit.

As soon as the officers left the building, she would start up again. [ 33 ] She found out that the officers had taken the defendant to the hospital and, for two days, she did not hear any noise coming from that unit. [ 34 ] As soon as the defendant came back, the noises started again, but only for a short time because she was finally arrested. [ 35 ] The defendant never returned. [ 36 ] Even after the defendant left the unit, the witness suffered from insomnia and heart palpitations for two or three months. [ 37 ] The impact of the defendant's actions on her was significant. [ 38 ] When cross-examined, she could not say whether the immovable is properly soundproofed because she is not an expert. [ 39 ] She confirmed that three weeks after she moved in, she heard noises coming from the defendant's unit, every day, at any time of the day or night. [ 40 ] She had to ask for half-days to catch up on the sleep that she could no longer get at home. [ 41 ] She denied making racist remarks to the defendant but did ask her to leave because she could not take it anymore. [ 42 ] She believes that when the defendant yelled, "You will burn in Hell, my father will kill you", she was making threats.

[ 43 ] She confirmed that she never brought any civil proceedings against the defendant, nor did she ever have a physical altercation with her. [ 44 ] She confirmed that on April 12, 2020, at 7:57 p.m., she dialed 911 and said that the defendant appeared to be in crisis, was shouting and banging on the walls. [ 45 ] On July 16, 2020, at 9 p.m., she dialed 911 and said that the defendant was in crisis because she was banging on the walls and in a religious delirium. [ 46 ] Finally, on August 21, 2020, she dialed 911 because the noise was very intense.

She confirmed that she called 911 once or twice more after that. Mr. Sylvain Plante [ 47 ] He lives at [...], in Montreal in unit 410, which is diagonal to the defendant’s unit. [ 48 ] In the Spring of 2019, he noticed excessive noises coming from the defendant's unit. [ 49 ] She was shouting and invoking God. She was banging on the floor and on the walls. [ 50 ] At first, he tried speaking to the defendant.

He was unsuccessful. [ 51 ] In September 2019, the noise increased in intensity: she added music and tam tams. [ 52 ] In October 2019, he called the police and noticed that there were several people in the hallway. [ 53 ] He got angry with the defendant and yelled at her: "C’est le bruit à propos de ton fucking god ". [ 54 ] He also agreed that he punched the defendant's door, in an intimidating way, but never did that again. [ 55 ] When he did that, he confirmed that Mr.

Pablo Wang, the neighbour from 415 and his girlfriend were also present. [ 56 ] He admitted that he told the defendant that everyone was against her. [ 57 ] After that incident, he decided to play by the rules by calling the police officers. [ 58 ] He agrees on the number of 911 calls, 33, he made during that period. [ 59 ] He received a formal notice from the defendant for "Offence à sa liberté de religion " which asked him to stop harassing the defendant. [ 60 ] Afterward, he stopped referring to her religion. [ 61 ] From October 2019 to September 2020, the noises continued and increased, as did the number of 911 calls. [ 62 ] He explained that in her delirium, which he describes as religious, the defendant named unit numbers 410, 401, 411 and says "Vous êtes des pêcheurs, vous méritez de mourir, vous méritez d’être punis". [ 63 ] He added that from that moment on, the defendant's behaviour became increasingly concerning. [ 64 ] He said that he would check before going out into the hallway, concerned that she might appear from her unit. [ 65 ] During this time, the pandemic was raging and he had to work from home, but the noise prevented him from focussing and sleeping. [ 66 ] He had to take sick leave to catch up on his lack of sleep. [ 67 ] In August 2020, he filed a complaint with the police and gave a first statement on August 30, 2020. [ 68 ] At that time, the interventions were nearly daily until finally, on September 9, around dinner time, the police officers and social service workers went to the defendant's door to give her one last warning. [ 69 ] The officers met with him and told him that if the defendant started up again, he should call them.

[ 70 ] Two hours after the intervention, the defendant started to make noise again, as if nothing had happened. [ 71 ] Later, through the peephole of his door, he saw that the officers were leaving the premises with the defendant, which put an end to it. [ 72 ] He subsequently wrote a second statement. [ 73 ] He admitted that the defendant's actions were very disruptive to him and even scary in the end.

After these events, his physician had to increase his anti-anxiety medication. [ 74 ] He also had to cancel two or three work meetings because there was too much noise in his unit. [ 75 ] He closed his testimony by saying that initially, the officers would intervene once or twice a month, but toward the end, it was once or twice a week. [ 76 ] The officers gave him 21 cards referring to their intervention. [ 77 ] He remembers that after two visits to the defendant to ask her to stop making noise, the building manager asked him to stay away from the defendant's door. [ 78 ] He agreed that their co-ownership by-laws ask that between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. noise be limited but added that excessive noise is prohibited at any time of the day. [ 79 ] He said that he could hear noise from the other condos but added that it was quite unlike the noises coming from the defendant's unit. [ 80 ] He prepared a sketch of the premises that was filed under D-1. [ 81 ] He said that his door was about 25 to 30 feet from the defendant's door and there was another 30 feet between his door and his kitchen. [ 82 ] He confirmed that he did not include in his statements that the defendant said that they were all sinners and should die and be punished because, for him, the noise was the important thing.

Mr. Pablo Wang [ 83 ] He lives at [...], in unit 411. [ 84 ] His unit is across from the defendant's unit. [ 85 ] On October 25, 2019, he was present during a conflict involving the defendant. [ 86 ] For some time, he had been hearing chants and prayers coming from the defendant's unit, which were preventing him from sleeping. [ 87 ] He added that it was as if there was a fight.

It was very intense and dramatic. [ 88 ] In 2017 and 2018, he heard noises from time to time, but in late 2019, it was every day. [ 89 ] At the start, because he does not like confrontation and he was working late, he did not want to intervene. [ 90 ] Also, because he is a Christian, he would tell himself that it was fine for her to pray. [ 91 ] On October 30, 2019, he tried to tell her that the noise was disturbing her neighbours, but she told him that she was not making any noise and that he was harassing her. [ 92 ] One week later, he received a letter insisting that he stop harassing her. [ 93 ] He then began to note everything and record the noises coming from the defendant's unit. [ 94 ] He said that he wanted to enjoy his unit but there was never any peace because the noise had become very loud, to the point where he could understand what she was chanting. [ 95 ] He confirmed that the noises were at all hours of the day and night and could last up to three hours. [ 96 ] He also confirmed that he called the police a few times. [ 97 ] He said that he would avoid going home because of the noise. [ 98 ] On August 23, 2020, he became concerned because he heard the defendant say his unit number and call him a Christian and a traitor.

[ 99 ] On August 27, and September 9, 2020, he made two statements to the police. [ 100 ] He filed into evidence, under P-1, a CD containing an outline of the various recordings of the noises. [ 101 ] He described the noises heard on the CD and the remarks referring to them. [ 102 ] When cross-examined on the event of October 25, 2019, he denied being at the heart of the conflict and said instead that when he went out to the floor, the neighbours and police officers were already there. [ 103 ] He admits that he wanted to know whether the other tenants had the same problem he did with the defendant. [ 104 ] When the officers asked them to go back inside their units, he obeyed. [ 105 ] He denies that he put trash in front of the defendant's door and confirmed that he never personally received death threats from her. [ 106 ] He never saw her with a weapon. [ 107 ] He prepared a sketch of his unit, which was filed under D-2. [ 108 ] He believes that when the defendant referred to a Christian, she was referring to him and called him a wolf. [ 109 ] On September 9, 2020, he called 911 to say that he did not feel safe because he thought the defendant had broken the microphone he had installed under his front door in August.

Officer Farley [ 110 ] He was assigned to this case as an information validation officer. [ 111 ] He oversees cases concerning incivility with respect to noise, among other things. [ 112 ] He uses data banks every day to see whether some calls are repeated. [ 113 ] In March 2019, calls began to appear concerning the defendant. [ 114 ] In November 2019, police officers told him about a call they had received concerning the defendant's apartment. [ 115 ] At that point, the officers told the defendant about the municipal by-law concerning noise. [ 116 ] Following this intervention and the analysis of the situation, on November 14, 2019, a letter from the legal department was sent to the defendant.

This letter was filed under P-2. [ 117 ] It stated that on November 8, 2019, a 911 call was made concerning noise that was disrupting the surrounding tranquility and that if it happened again, she might be given a statement of offence. [ 118 ] The letter also referred to the applicable municipal by-law concerning noise and the minimum fine for that type of offence. [ 119 ] After receiving the letter, the defendant contacted him. [ 120 ] The officer explained to her the municipal by-law concerning noise and added that if the noise becomes excessive and disrupted the neighbourhood, she might be given a statement of offence. [ 121 ] The defendant told him that she was just praying. [ 122 ] He told her that she could do so but that if the noise became excessive and 911 calls were made, the officers that noted the noise could issue a statement of offence against her. [ 123 ] Finally, she told him that she respected the work of officers but that she would respect God's will above all else. [ 124 ] Following that discussion, he and the witness Plante tried to find solutions with the syndicate of co-owners or to mediate with the defendant, among other things. [ 125 ] He noted that the witness Plante was very affected by the situation from a physical and emotional standpoint. [ 126 ] He knew that there were two other complainants but never spoke to them.

[ 127 ] Later, he consulted the 911 call log to inform the local officers that there had been noise complaints for that location and that going forward, they would no longer just be giving warnings. [ 128 ] From March 2, 2019, to August 26, 2020, he listed 49 calls about the defendant’s unit, of which 46 concerned noise and 3 concerned a conflict. [ 129 ] On September 3, 2020, he prepared a report concerning these facts. [ 130 ] He prepared a second report concerning the day of September 8, 2020, when four 911 calls were made for noise complaints relating to the defendant, which resulted in four reports or statements of offence being prepared. [ 131 ] From that moment on, he began to consider criminal charges. [ 132 ] He has 17 years of experience with the SPVM, all of them at station 21, and considers this to be the worse case he has ever seen involving noise. [ 133 ] When cross-examined, he confirmed that during the conversation on November 26, 2019, an incident of the defendant being harassed due to her Christian faith was discussed. [ 134 ] He also confirmed that he was aware that a police report had been prepared on October 30, 2019. [ 135 ] He remembers that she told him that there was a plot on the fourth floor of her building, but he told her that because there was a police complaint, he would let the file unfold because his work concerned only noise complaints. [ 136 ] He knows that between September 9, 2019, and September 9, 2020, the defendant called 911, but cannot say how many times or for what reason. [ 137 ] He said that he did not take her complaint of October 25, 2019, into consideration because what he was interested in were the 911 calls concerning the noise coming form the defendant's unit. [ 138 ] He did not notice that after October 25, 2019, there were even more 911 calls. [ 139 ] He confirmed that he often tells complainants to call 911 to ensure that there was a record. [ 140 ] He stated that the Urgence psychosocial-justice organization is used to determine whether there are other issues at play in a file. [ 141 ] He confirmed that in his report, he wrote that; "au mois de février, les policiers, à la suite d’une plainte de bruit, ont contacté UPSJ afin de faire évaluer Mme Ihejirika, rapport MTLV numéro séquentiel.

Il est à noter que Mme Ihejirika est très méfiante et refuse, à tout coup, d’ouvrir la porte aux policiers." [ 142 ] He indicated that with respect to noise, officers called to the premises may first give warnings when they note that the offence was committed.

However, if the problem becomes recurrent, they have no choice but to issue statements of offence so that criminal charges can be laid. [ 143 ] He added that with respect to noise, their powers are limited and confirmed that he would not charge a person with mischief after a single 911 call. [ 144 ] Finally, he was not aware that on November 26, 2019, one hour after their telephone conversation, the investigator in charge of the defendant's harassment file informed the defendant that no charges would be filed.

Officer Badreddine Statement of offence 320-125-982 [ 145 ] On November 5, 2019, Officer Badreddine received a noise complaint concerning [...], in Montreal. [ 146 ] When he got to the fourth floor of the building, he met with the person who had called 911. [ 147 ] Then, he heard noise coming from unit 416. [ 148 ] It was religious incantations: "Oh Lord, oh Jesus". [ 149 ] He could hear the defendant as if she were right next to him despite being 15 metres from her unit. [ 150 ] He could not say how long he heard the noise or how he identified the defendant.

[ 151 ] He met with the defendant and informed her that the noise was bothering others, but the defendant told him that she would not stop because she was within her rights. [ 152 ] He said that the defendant argued with him when he tried to explain that the noise was bothering her neighbours. [ 153 ] She repeated, again and again, that it was her religious right. [ 154 ] He added that on April 12, 2020, at 3:34 p.m., he went back to the defendant’s home after another noise complaint was made. [ 155 ] When he was 20 metres from the defendant's unit, he heard religious clamour as well as tam tam noises and banging on the walls. [ 156 ] He prepared a statement of offence that he served on the defendant in person. [ 157 ] It was the same person as on November 5, 2019.

Since then, he had received information on her identity. [ 158 ] When cross-examined, he does not remember speaking with her about the conflict in October, or that she told him that her neighbours were plotting against her. [ 159 ] He does not remember that his colleague, Officer Corriveau, told the defendant that it would be better if she moved.

Officer Chapdelaine Statement of offence: 304-618-156 [ 160 ] On September 1, 2020, Officer Chapdelaine went to the defendant's unit, with his colleague Officer Lacombe, following a noise complaint. [ 161 ] As soon as he exited the elevator, he heard noises coming from unit 416. [ 162 ] The defendant was shouting, chanting, and clapping her hands. [ 163 ] He knocked on her door, but she refused to answer it. [ 164 ] He spoke to her through the door.

He is certain, however, that it was the same person he had met previously. [ 165 ] He told her that he would have to give her a statement of offence, but she answered that it would change nothing. [ 166 ] He slipped the statement of offence under the door and saw that she took it.

Statement of offence: 320-681-863 [ 167 ] On September 7, 2020, he returned to the defendant's unit following a noise complaint. [ 168 ] As soon as he arrived, he heard chants, shouts, and the sound of a drum. [ 169 ] He knocked on the door of unit 416 to inform the defendant about the complaint. [ 170 ] She opened the door and he told her about the municipal by-law, but she told him that she would not stop the music and chants. [ 171 ] Because she did not want to stop, he gave her a statement of offence. [ 172 ] He identified her with her health insurance card and sent her the statement of offence by mail. [ 173 ] He tried to convince her to stop, but she told him about her religious rights. [ 174 ] He said that the drum and percussion noises were loud. [ 175 ] Then, he went to meet with the complainant and despite the complainant’s door being shut, he clearly heard the noises coming from the defendant's unit. [ 176 ] He remembers that before going to the defendant’s unit on September 1, 2020, he had received a letter from Officer Farley telling him that this was a recurring problem. [ 177 ] He added that he was not aware of the problem before his first intervention. [ 178 ] When cross-examined, he remembered that there was a conflict with the neighbours.

[ 179 ] He told the defendant that he would be speaking to Officer Farley about the problem. [ 180 ] He put his report on Officer Farley's desk because he wanted to confirm that he was doing the right thing and that there was a history behind his intervention. [ 181 ] Finally, he validated and sent the statement of offence to the defendant. [ 182 ] He confirmed that the defendant's unit is located two doors down from the elevator.

Officer Morin Statement of offence 320-661-445 [ 183 ] Officer Morin was the one to issue statement of offence 320-661-445 on December 26, 2019. [ 184 ] He explained that following a 911 call regarding a noise complaint at [...], in Montreal, he noticed that a woman was chanting and clapping her hands in unit 416. [ 185 ] He knocked on the defendant's door, and she answered. [ 186 ] He told her the noise was too loud, but she told him that she did not care because she was praying. [ 187 ] He identified her with her health insurance card and told her that she would receive the statement of offence in the mail. [ 188 ] He confirmed that the noise was coming from unit 416, and that they were sufficiently loud to be heard in the hallway. [ 189 ] He believes that it was not the first time he had gone there for a noise complaint concerning the same defendant. [ 190 ] When cross-examined, he did not remember being there on October 25, 2019, and could not say, therefore, whether he had met the defendant that evening. [ 191 ] On December 25, 2020, he remembers telling her, "I remember you".

Officer Cloutier [ 192 ] He went to the defendant's unit on February 15, 2020, around 7:17 p.m., for a noise complaint. [ 193 ] When he got to the correct floor, he heard religious chants about Jesus. [ 194 ] He approached unit 416 and noticed that the noise was coming from that apartment.

He is 100% certain about this and he considered it really unreasonable. [ 195 ] He added that had he been one of the neighbours, he too would have called the police. [ 196 ] He knew that it was a recurring problem and for that reason, he was accompanied by Urgence psychosociale-justice workers, who began a conversation with the defendant. [ 197 ] The defendant told him that if he wanted to take her by force, he could, but she would not be opening the door. [ 198 ] After the conversation between the defendant and the Urgence psychosociale-justice workers, he gave her a statement of offence. [ 199 ] He added that he was unable to identify her but confirmed her identity with the neighbours and colleagues who had identified her with her health insurance card. [ 200 ] On July 16, 2020, he was called to the building and once again noticed excessive noise.

The defendant was banging on the walls and chanting. [ 201 ] He confirmed that it was the same person he met on February 15, 2020. [ 202 ] He spoke with her through the door because she refused to answer it. [ 203 ] He wrote a statement of offence because he knew that there was a plan to eventually charge the defendant with a criminal offence. [ 204 ] He confirmed that he never saw the defendant. [ 205 ] When cross-examined, he said that he could not comment on the quality of the

soundproofing in the building. [ 206 ] He confirmed that Officer Trudel and the workers asked him to open the door to have direct contact with the defendant. Officer Lapierre [ 207 ] She went to [...], in Montreal around 7:45 p.m. on February 13, 2020, following a 911 call for a noise complaint. [ 208 ] As soon as she arrived, she heard a woman shouting the words "Satan and God".

Those shouts came from unit 416. [ 209 ] She added that the defendant was banging on the walls or on an object. [ 210 ] When she got to unit 416, she tried to communicate with the defendant, but the latter refused to open the door. [ 211 ] The officer told the defendant that her colleagues had already warned her that if she continued to make noise, she would get a statement of offence. [ 212 ] The defendant told her to send the statement in the mail and slipped her health insurance card under the door. [ 213 ] Following the intervention, she called UPS-J to ask them if the defendant should be assessed, but received the information only on January 20, 2020, the defendant had been assessed and represented a low risk to herself. [ 214 ] When she was getting ready to leave the scene, she heard the defendant start to shout again. [ 215 ] When cross-examined, she said that her colleague Officer Baptiste asked the defendant whether she had family in Montreal and whether she could call them.

Officer Lambert-Pronovost [ 216 ] He was personally involved on three occasions concerning the noise complaints involving the defendant. [ 217 ] On August 28, 2020, around 11 p.m., he received a 911 call concerning a noise complaint, from the owner of unit 401. [ 218 ] Once there, he met with the complainant and then went to unit 416 to speak to the defendant, but she refused to open the door and conversation was impossible. [ 219 ] He heard the defendant make incoherent remarks.

She shouted what appeared to be prayers because she was speaking of Jesus. [ 220 ] She was given a statement of offence. [ 221 ] On September 9, 2020, around noon, the neighbour, Mr.

Wang, called 911 to complain about the noise coming from the defendant's unit. [ 222 ] Sergeant Thibodeau, who was with him, placed the defendant under arrest for mischief and she was released on a promise to appear. [ 223 ] The conditions of her release were explained to her, but the defendant told them that the charges were false. [ 224 ] He left the building and prepared his incident report. [ 225 ] That same day, around 3 p.m., he received a 911 call from the witness Plante, who was complaining about the noise coming from unit 416. [ 226 ] When he got to the building, he saw the promise to appear stuck on the defendant's apartment door. [ 227 ] He heard the defendant praying very loudly and speaking of false charges. [ 228 ] Around 3:30 p.m., he knocked on the door and told the defendant that he had come to arrest her. [ 229 ] The defendant told him: "You're welcome in".

He told her that he would prefer if she opened the door, which she did.

[ 230 ] He arrested her for mischief. She told him that she had changed her clothes for her court appearance and that she knew her rights. [ 231 ] She refused to speak to counsel because in her eyes, the only counsel is Jesus. [ 232 ] When cross-examined, he confirmed that on August 28, 2020, he was with Officer Lavigueur. [ 233 ] He does not remember that she told him that her neighbours harassed her, or that she spoke to him about Mr. Wang. [ 234 ] He also confirmed that on September 9, 2020, around noon, he was with Officer Chabot.

Officer Lagüe [ 235 ] He went to [...], in Montreal on February 23, 2020, because he received a request from UPS-J for a psychiatric assessment of the defendant. [ 236 ] Once there, he went to unit 416 and told the defendant that he had a request for an assessment and had to ensure her transport to hospital. [ 237 ] She wanted to see the warrant and because it was written in French, she requested an English copy. [ 238 ] The Officer translated the document for her and after a few minutes of negotiating, she opened the door and was taken to hospital.

Statement of offence: 320-765-970 [ 239 ] On August 23, 2020, he went back to the defendant's unit, this time for a noise complaint. [ 240 ] As soon as the elevator doors opened, he heard remarks about the Bible and Satan, as if the person was in another world. [ 241 ] He did not see the defendant but recognized her voice because he had previously intervened with her. [ 242 ] He slipped the statement of offence under the door because he knew that she would not open it.

Statement of offence: 320-683-333 [ 243 ] On September 7, 2020, he returned to the defendant's door. [ 244 ] As soon as the elevator doors opened, he heard music coming from unit 416. [ 245 ] He heard the defendant shouting things about the Bible and Satan. [ 246 ] He knocked on the door, but she continued to shout. [ 247 ] He wrote the statement of offence and slipped it under the door. [ 248 ] When he spoke to her, through the door, he was 100% certain that it was the same person he had previously identified. [ 249 ] He added that the music was very loud, and the defendant's shouts were intense and continuous. [ 250 ] When cross-examined, he confirmed that on February 23, 2020, the defendant spoke of Satan and of the Bible. [ 251 ] He said that he does not know the difference between belief and delirium but he knows that it was loud and it bothered the neighbours. [ 252 ] He does not remember if a photograph was taken inside the defendant's unit. [ 253 ] He also does not remember whether Officer Collard asked her whether she had been hospitalized. [ 254 ] He said that on August 23, 2020, he knocked loud enough for the defendant to hear him and come to the door. [ 255 ] He does not remember whether he asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital. [ 256 ] As for September 7, 2020, he confirmed that he served the statement of offence that same

day and said that he spent 15 minutes asking her to open the door. [ 257 ] He does not remember whether she asked him to stop knocking on her door.

Officer Lachance Statement of offence: 320-829-401 [ 258 ] Officer Lachance, with her colleague Officer Collard, went to the defendant's apartment on September 8, 2020, around 7 p.m., for a call concerning a noise complaint. [ 259 ] As soon as she got to the fourth floor, she heard chants and shouts, she walked 20 metres before reaching the defendant's unit, and as she approached, the noises got louder. [ 260 ] She heard religious chants and prayers and added that they were incoherent. [ 261 ] She has no doubt that the complaint was well founded. [ 262 ] She knocked repeatedly on the door and, finally, she heard a woman's voice. [ 263 ] She identified herself as a police officer, but the defendant refused to open the door or cooperate. [ 264 ] When cross-examined, she claimed that before getting to the building, she knew the defendant's identity and was therefore able to prepare the statement of offence, which she slid under the door.

She saw the statement disappear.

Sergeant-detective Thibodeau [ 265 ] It was Sergeant-detective Thibodeau who took over the defendant's file. [ 266 ] She received the file from her supervisor on September 9, 2020, and her mandate was to put an end to the noise at [...], in Montreal, more specifically in unit 416, after several statements of offence had been issued. [ 267 ] She read Officer Farley’s report and called the defendant at 10:30 a.m. to summon her and proceed to her arrest. [ 268 ] She informed her of her right to silence and to counsel in English and informed her that she would be released with a promise subject to conditions. [ 269 ] The defendant told her that she would prefer if she came to her home. [ 270 ] She went to the defendant's home with Sergeant-detective Samson. [ 271 ] Once there, she noted that the music was loud, even though the defendant had told her that she had lowered the volume so they could hear each other. [ 272 ] Officers Chabot and Pronovost were also there. [ 273 ] The defendant was arrested for mischief and was informed of her right to silence and to counsel in English. [ 274 ] A promise to appear with conditions was issued to her and they informed her of the consequences of breaching the conditions.

The defendant said that she understood. [ 275 ] She told the Sergeant that if it was God's will that she be arrested, then she would be. [ 276 ] The Sergeant left the building and when she got to the office, she received two calls from the defendant.

The first at 1:19 p.m. and the second at 2:29 p.m. [ 277 ] The defendant asked her what would happen if she breached the conditions and what she could bring with her if she were brought to the station and detained because, she said, she would not stop praying. [ 278 ] Three hours went by between the time the defendant was given the information and her arrest by Officers Chabot and Pronovost. [ 279 ] She informed the officers that the defendant would be detained. [ 280 ] She prepared the charges and adduced into evidence the promise with conditions she had issued to the defendant at 11:52 a.m. that same day under P-3. [ 281 ] When cross-examined, she does not remember whether there was a 911 call that morning, but she does know that her superior had given her the file.

[ 282 ] Nor does she remember whether Officer Chabot told the defendant that if he returned to arrest her, she had to open the door, or whether that conversation was recorded.

The defendant [ 283 ] The Court accepts the following from the defendant's testimony. [ 284 ] She decided to testify in support of her application and on the merits. [ 285 ] She spoke of her belief in Jesus and indicated that she is under the authority of the Bible, from which she quoted verse on multiple occasions. [ 286 ] According to God's word, he asks that she make noise as his servant by chanting and praying. [ 287 ] She added that she has a contract with God and if she does not obey his orders, she will suffer the consequences. [ 288 ] In September 2018, she moved to unit 416, [...], in Montreal. [ 289 ] Because she regarded obtaining a two-year grant for her studies as a miracle, she began to chant and pray between November and December 2018. [ 290 ] She said that it was not every day but often. [ 291 ] On January 24, 2019, while she was chanting and praying, she thinks her neighbour, Mr.

Plante, knocked on her door. He was angry. [ 292 ] This happened again in late February. [ 293 ] On March 2, 2019, Mr.

Plante knocked on her door so hard that her door was moving. [ 294 ] The same day, police officers came to her home because they had received a 911 call for a noise complaint. [ 295 ] On March 3, 2019, she spoke to the building manager. [ 296 ] On March 9, 2019, she called the police because she said that someone was screaming in the hallway while she was chanting and praying. [ 297 ] She said that from March 15, 2019, until May 2019, nothing happened even though she chanted and prayed every evening. [ 298 ] In the summer of 2019, she found trash in front of her door and deduced that someone was unhappy. [ 299 ] On September 20, 2019, someone tried to open her door. [ 300 ] On October 13, 2019, she dialled 911 because there was noise in unit 415. [ 301 ] Officer Campeau came, but there was no longer any noise. [ 302 ] From that moment, she knew that she had to resist Satan and had to be persistent and strong. [ 303 ] It was at that moment that she began to speak of the blood of Jesus, because she knew that the blood of Jesus would protect her. [ 304 ] According to the defendant, when we are not under God's authority, we are under Satan's authority.

She therefore intensified her chants and prayers to repel Satan. [ 305 ] On October 25, 2019, her faith wavered and when someone knocked on her door, she opened it and saw the tenant of unit 412, who called her crazy. [ 306 ] The defendant told her that if she knocked on her door again, she would call 911. [ 307 ] Her neighbours Wang and Plante came out into the hallway. [ 308 ] She dialed 911 and Mr.

Plante approached her and told her that everyone was against her before adding: "Fucking God". [ 309 ] The police officers arrived on the premises and asked everyone to go back into their units. [ 310 ] The neighbours came back out after the officers left and stated that they were to call 911 as

soon they heard any noise. [ 311 ] She called back the police and they encouraged her to file a complaint. [ 312 ] On October 31, 2019, she prepared a statement and from then on, she received more frequent visits from the police. [ 313 ] Meanwhile, she hired a lawyer who sent formal notices to her neighbours ordering them to stop their harassment of her based on her religion. [ 314 ] She continued to resist, to chant and pray because it was more important to obey God than to obey Man. [ 315 ] She added her tambourine because she was frightened and said that everything she did was for love of God. [ 316 ] On November 26, 2019, she had a conversation with Officer Farley after receiving a letter. [ 317 ] She explained to him the context in which she chants and prays and told him that these are the weapons Christians use to protect themselves. [ 318 ] In late November, she found out from Sergeant-detective Roberge that no charges would be laid in relation to the events of October 25, 2019. [ 319 ] Following a discussion with the condominium manager, she understood that her neighbours were plotting to evict her from her apartment and she would be alone to fight them. [ 320 ] From October until the end of 2019, she began to receive statements of offence even though she tried to chant and pray less loudly. [ 321 ] On January 29, 2020, she was visited by Officers Girard and Henry because she had been chanting and praying since 6 p.m. [ 322 ] They did not tell her why they were there but were with two women who said they were there to help her. [ 323 ] She felt that she had to let them in. [ 324 ] They asked her if she was suicidal and whether she was capable of change. [ 325 ] The defendant told them that even if she chanted and prayed less loudly, it would change nothing, referring to her neighbours' behaviour. [ 326 ] She added that because she was one with Jesus, she must obey the rules of the "Heavenly City". [ 327 ] The officers told her that the next time they had to come, they would have to arrest her. [ 328 ] After that, she decided that she would no longer open the door to police officers. [ 329 ] Then, she had two dreams which foretold that her mental health would be called into question. [ 330 ] On February 9, 2020, at 6 p.m., two officers came to her home. [ 331 ] She spoke with them but refused to open the door. [ 332 ] She received a statement of offence. [ 333 ] She admitted that when she chants, her soprano voice carries.

Thirty minutes after the officers' visit, they came back and, still through the door, they asked her whether she had any family that could help them resolve the issue. [ 334 ] The officers asked her to open the door so they could identify her. [ 335 ] She told them that they knew who she was and she slipped her health insurance card under the door. [ 336 ] The officers took her card and whispered but did not give the card back. [ 337 ] She believes that they did not give the health insurance card back because they wanted her to open the door, which she refused to do, because she is under no obligation to do so. [ 338 ] The officers told her that they would contact Urgence psychosociale-justice .

[ 339 ] On February 15, 2019, at around 6 p.m., when she was praying and chanting, officers knocked loudly at her door and asked her to open it. [ 340 ] She said that she was starting to feel afraid, even though God was protecting her. [ 341 ] She went to another room and shut that door so that she couldn't hear them. [ 342 ] A UPS-J worker wanted her to open the door and Officer Trudel asked her why she was acting like this. [ 343 ] She added that other Christians practice their religion and that does not cause any problems. [ 344 ] The defendant told her that Christians are persecuted and must suffer. [ 345 ] They stayed at the door for an hour and she went back to her bedroom to chant and pray. [ 346 ] At around 11 p.m., a different group of officers came back and she told them that unless they had a warrant she was going to bed. [ 347 ] On February 17, 2019, an officer came to her door and told her that he had a warrant signed by UPS-J for a psychiatric assessment concerning her religious delusions. [ 348 ] She said that an officer took a photo of her putting on her shoes. [ 349 ] She was admitted to the Notre-Dame hospital at around midnight and saw Dr.

Stéphane Proulx. [ 350 ] He and two of his colleagues questioned her, and then she went home at about 4 a.m. [ 351 ] Once home, since she believed that God had helped her, she began to chant and pray. [ 352 ] Starting in January 2020, she felt less safe in the building, and she reported noise to the police and the syndicate of co-owners. [ 353 ] For that reason, from March to September 2020, she chanted and prayed louder. [ 354 ] On March 8, 2020, she received an eviction letter referring to noise at night, but there was no mention of chants or prayers. [ 355 ] Then, she received a letter from the condo's owner to retake possession of her dwelling. [ 356 ] She added that she had planned to return to Ontario in September or October 2019, but the pandemic delayed her plans until 2021. [ 357 ] To show that there was a plot against her, she spoke of an incident of domestic violence on April 5, 2020. [ 358 ] This incident led to the arrest of her neighbour in unit 464 and was a result of her 911 call. [ 359 ] She said that no one dialed 911 that day and that the syndicate of co-owners was never informed of the incident. [ 360 ] She considered that there was a double standard applied to her because the neighbours called 911 about her but no one called 911 about the incident on April 5, 2020. [ 361 ] She also sent a letter to UPS-J to repudiate the false statements that led to her psychiatric assessment at the Notre-Dame hospital. [ 362 ] She believes that the letters she sent to the SPVM and UPS-J were successful because after April 4, 2020, no police officers came to her home. [ 363 ] But she had dreams and visions that she would face charges. [ 364 ] Then, she saw signs of Satan in the banging on her door, and the trash left in front of her door, and she decided to chant and pray "To avenge God". [ 365 ] Between July 5 and September 9, 2020, police officers came to her home on several occasions, and she received many statements of offence. [ 366 ] She noted that the police were harassing her because during the first week of September, one of the officers who showed up at her door asked her why she did not go to church to pray.

She believes that this harassment is related to her faith. [ 367 ] She answered the officer's question with "My apartment is my inner room".

[ 368 ] On September 8, 2020, she admitted that she increased the volume of the music because there was noise coming from unit 415. [ 369 ] That same day, the officers came at 11 a.m. and she admitted that the music was loud. [ 370 ] She was issued a summons to appear, and the officers left. [ 371 ] She started chanting and praying and ten minutes later, the officers came back to arrest her. [ 372 ] They did not handcuff her and Officer Pronovost did not want to search her, calling instead on a female officer to do so. [ 373 ] When they arrived at the station, she did not want to speak with counsel, saying that Jesus was her counsel. [ 374 ] She then filed into evidence a USB key under D-9 and pointed out that four of these recordings were of interactions she had with police officers who came to her door. [ 375 ] When cross-examined, it appears from her testimony that, for her, God's law is above any law of Man and that if God's law is contrary to that of Man, she will have face the consequences. [ 376 ] She added that she believes the plot was hatched on October 25, 2019, and that the fact that Mr.

Plante maligned her God indicates that he is against her religion. [ 377 ] She does not believe that the multiple complaints were due to the noise, but rather, because of what happened on October 25, 2019. [ 378 ] When questioned about the officers' erratic behaviour leading to the filing of the application, she says that the officers have been part of the plot since October 25, 2019. [ 379 ] She added that Officer Farley encouraged Mr.

Plante to call 911 when there was noise and then make a statement. [ 380 ] She reiterated that going to church to pray is inconsistent with her beliefs. [ 381 ] She said that she had the right to pray between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m., but given her neighbours’ actions, she had to pray 24 hours a day. II.

Positions of the parties on the applicaTion [ 382 ] The defendant believes that she suffered harassment at the hands of her neighbours to stop any practice of her religion and that the State, by giving her statements of offence did the same. [ 383 ] She added that during the many police interventions, the officers, by asking her to open the door to give her the statements of offence, infringed her right under

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms . [3] [ 384 ] With respect to that infringement, she added that when the officers came to her door with a warrant to have her psychiatrically assessed, she was psychologically detained. [ 385 ] The prosecution believes instead that the defendant's right to freedom of religion was not infringed because the way she exercised her right went against the right of her neighbours to the peaceful enjoyment of their dwelling. [ 386 ] The prosecution added that at no time did State conduct led to any infringement of her right to practice her religion. III.

THE CASE LAW [ 387 ] The Supreme Court of Canada, in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem , [4] established exhaustively the applicable principles when a person raises the argument that their freedom of religion under the Charter of human rights and freedoms [ Quebec Charter ] [5] or the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms [6] was infringed. [ 388 ] The Court will cite certain excerpts from that judgment, written by the Honorable Frank Iacobucci, that the Court adopts and believes are relevant to this case.

Freedom of religion [ 389 ] First, for Iacobucci J, "religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith".

[ 390 ] As for freedom of religion, in his view, "[t]he essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses , the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination ". [ 391 ] He adds that in the various judgments on freedom of religion, he notes that they insist on " the subjective aspect of the believer’s personal sincerity rather than the objective aspect of the conformity of the beliefs in question with established doctrine. [Emphasis added]." [ 392 ] Furthermore, in his view, it is not necessary for expert evidence to be presented because "the focus of the inquiry is not on what others view the claimant’s religious obligations as being, but rather what the claimant views these personal religious “obligations” to be, it is inappropriate to require expert opinions to show sincerity of belief.

An “expert” or an authority on religious law is not the surrogate for an individual’s affirmation of what his or her religious beliefs are. Religious belief is intensely personal and can easily vary from one individual to another.

Requiring proof of the established practices of a religion to gauge the sincerity of belief diminishes the very freedom we seek to protect” . [ 393 ] Finally, Iacobucci J is of the opinion that before going to the step of determining whether there is an infringement of the freedom of religion, " an individual advancing an issue premised upon a freedom of religion claim must show the court that (1) he or she has a practice or belief, having a nexus with religion, which calls for a particular line of conduct, either by being objectively or subjectively obligatory or customary, or by, in general, subjectively engendering a personal connection with the divine or with the subject or object of an individual’s spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials; and (2) he or she is sincere in his or her belief.

Only then will freedom of religion be triggered”.

Infringement of freedom of religion [ 394 ] With respect to the infringement of freedom of religion, Iacobucci J. says that "[o]nce an individual has shown that his or her religious freedom is triggered, as outlined above, a court must then ascertain whether there has been enough of an interference with the exercise of the implicated right so as to constitute an infringement of freedom of religion under the Quebec (or the Canadian) Charter ”. [ 395 ] He then goes on to add: … a claimant show that the impugned contractual or legislative provision (or conduct) interferes with his or her ability to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial. ...

At this stage, as a general matter, one can do no more than say that the context of each case must be examined to ascertain whether the interference is more than trivial or insubstantial. But it is important to observe what examining that context involves. ... In this respect, it should be emphasized that not every action will become summarily unassailable and receive automatic protection under the banner of freedom of religion.

No right, including freedom of religion, is absolute: ... …This is so because we live in a society of individuals in which we must always take the rights of others into account. … In the real world, oftentimes the fundamental rights of individuals will conflict or compete with one another.

... Freedom of religion, as outlined above, quite appropriately reflects a broad and expansive approach to religious freedom under both the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter and should not be prematurely narrowly construed. However, our jurisprudence does not allow individuals to do absolutely anything in the name of that freedom.

Even if individuals demonstrate that they sincerely believe in the religious essence of an action, for example, that a particular practice will subjectively engender a genuine connection with the divine or with the subject or object of their faith, and even if they successfully demonstrate non-trivial or non-insubstantial interference with that practice, they will still have to consider how the exercise of their right impacts upon the rights of others in the context of the competing rights of private individuals.

Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises.

Analysis and discussion [ 396 ] The Court considers that the defendant has proved that she has a practice or belief that is related to a Christian religion, that her way of praying is dictated to her by the Bible, that her prayers create a personal connection to God and that this belief is sincere. [ 397 ] Now, do the actions of her neighbours and the officers infringe "his or her ability to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial "? [ 398 ] In other words, does the fact that the neighbours call the police to make the noise stop or the fact that the officers give her statements of offence and ask her to stop making noise infringe her ability to act in accordance with her religious beliefs? [ 399 ] The Court must answer yes to this question. [ 400 ] Indeed, even if the actions of the neighbours and officers have only one objective, to make the noise stop, it remains that the result of their actions is to prevent the defendant from praying in accordance with her beliefs. [ 401 ] That is exactly what the Charter of human rights and freedoms [ Quebec Charter ], the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms , and the case law wish to protect. [ 402 ] Now, as stated earlier, "[c]onduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected".

The rights of others [ 403 ] The evidence has shown that the way the defendant prays greatly disturbed her neighbours’ free enjoyment of their apartments. [ 404 ] The witness Rond explained that from September 2019 to September 2020, she heard noise coming from the defendant's unit. [ 405 ] The defendant chanted, banged on the floor, banged on a musical instrument and on the walls in an unreasonable manner. [ 406 ] She added that in the fall of 2020, the defendant added very loud classical music. [ 407 ] She called the police a few times during this period and that she had to ask her boss for permission to sleep at the hospital, where she works, because she could not sleep at home due to the noise caused by the defendant. [ 408 ] The Court believes that the uncontradicted testimony of the witness Rond establishes that she did not have the free enjoyment of her apartment. [ 409 ] The witness Plante corroborated the testimony of witness Rond and added that he noticed inordinate noises coming from the defendant's unit starting in the spring of 2019. [ 410 ] He called the police 33 times. [ 411 ] He added that from October 2019 to September 2020 the noise kept getting louder. [ 412 ] He added that the defendant's behaviour became increasingly worrisome when she began to name her neighbours’ unit numbers and add: "Vous êtes des pêcheurs, vous méritez de mourir, vous méritez d’être punis". [ 413 ] He said that since he works from home, due to the pandemic, the noise caused by the defendant prevented him from focussing and sleeping at night.

[ 414 ] In fact, he had to take sick leave to catch up on his sleep. [ 415 ] Finally, following the defendant's actions, his physician had to increase his anti-anxiety medication. [ 416 ] Once again, the Court believes that the uncontradicted testimony of the witness Plante clearly establishes that he did not have the free enjoyment of his apartment. [ 417 ] The witness Wang corroborated the testimony of witnesses Rond and Plante. [ 418 ] He said that in 2017 and 2018, he sometimes heard noise coming from the defendant's apartment. [ 419 ] As he is also a Christian, like the defendant, on October 30, 2019, he tried to tell her that the noise was disturbing her neighbours, but she told him that she was not making any noise and that she considered that he was harassing her. [ 420 ] In fact, one week later, he received a formal notice insisting that he stop harassing her. [ 421 ] After that letter, he noted and recorded the noises coming from the defendant's apartment and filed into evidence all these recordings. [ 422 ] He said that there was never any peace because the noise had become louder, to the point where he could understand the words she was chanting. [ 423 ] Furthermore, he could hear the noise at any time of the day or night, to the point that he would avoid going home. [ 424 ] The noises could last up to three hours, non-stop. [ 425 ] On August 23, 2020, he became concerned when he heard the defendant say his unit number and call him a Christian and a traitor. [ 426 ] The Court considers that the uncontradicted testimony of the witness Wang clearly establishes that he no longer had the peaceful enjoyment of his apartment. [ 427 ] The defendant casts doubt on the credibility of her neighbours given that there were some contradictions in their testimony. [ 428 ] Also, she believes that the charges laid against her are the result of a plot orchestrated by them and supported by the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal . [ 429 ] The Court cannot agree with this argument because all the testimony heard, either from the neighbours or the police officers, is unanimous on the issue of the excessively disruptive noises that the defendant made when she prayed and chanted. [ 430 ] To doubt the credibility of the witnesses when they corroborate each other would be an error, besides the fact that the defendant also corroborated their testimony when she said that she had to pray louder to chase Satan away. [ 431 ] On the contrary, the Court considers that both the testimony of the defendant’s three neighbours and the testimony of the officers heard at trial must be accepted. [ 432 ] They testified honestly and without any acrimony.

They gave detailed testimony and, in the case of the witness Wang, audio recordings clearly establishing the defendant's actions. [ 433 ] Moreover, the Court believes that the defendant's neighbours were not targeting her religious beliefs but the high-intensity noise she made when praying. [ 434 ] Because the Court believes the testimony of the defendant’s neighbours and the testimony of the police officers called to the building, there is no doubt that the defendant's prayers, while performed in accordance with her beliefs, prevented her neighbours from the free enjoyment of their apartments.

Conflict between two fundamental rights [ 435 ] Iacobucci J. states the following when the right to freedom of religion is in conflict with another fundamental right: " our jurisprudence does not allow individuals to do absolutely anything in the name of that freedom .

Even if individuals demonstrate that they sincerely believe in the religious essence of an action, for example, that a particular practice will subjectively engender a genuine connection with the divine or with the subject or object of their faith, and even if they successfully demonstrate non-trivial or non-insubstantial interference with that practice, they will still have to consider how the exercise of their right impacts upon the rights of others in the context of the competing rights of private individuals.

Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of

any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises”. [ 436 ] Considering that the defendant's actions, as described by the various witnesses for the prosecution, and in some respects by her own testimony, caused significant harm to her neighbours, the Court believes that her right to freedom of religion cannot be protected either under the Charter of human rights and freedoms [ Quebec Charter ] or the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms . [ 437 ] Accordingly, the application to exclude evidence and to stay proceedings is dismissed.

Mischief and statements of offence [ 438 ] Has the prosecution met its burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence of mischief was committed by the defendant?

Positions of the parties [ 439 ] The prosecution believes that the various civilian and police witnesses offered evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 440 ] It is the prosecution's contention that the defendant corroborated the testimony of the witnesses and for that reason, she should be convicted on the count of mischief. [ 441 ] The defendant is of the opinion that the noise made by her prayers was not such as to prevent her neighbours from enjoying their apartments. [ 442 ] She added that because she never intended to bother her neighbours she cannot be convicted of mischief. [ 443 ] On this subject, she added that if she does not follow the teachings of God, she will suffer the consequences and so, she had no choice but to pray.

IV. THE LAW [ 444 ]

Section 430 of the Criminal Code provides: 430(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (

a) destroys or damages property; (

b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective; (

c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or (

d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property. [ 445 ] Also,

section 429 of the Criminal Code defines how the word "wilfully" in

section 430 of the Code should be interpreted: 429

(1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing

an act or by omitting to do

an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event. [ 446 ] Gagnon J.A. in R. c. Levesque , [7] considered the basic tenets of the charge of mischief. [ 447 ] First, he describes the mens rea required for the charge of mischief as follows: [64] Ensuite, en vertu de l’

article 429 C.cr . , l’infraction de méfait est démontrée par la prevue de la connaissance par l’accusé des consequences probables de ses gestes, en l’occurrence ceux interdits à l’

article 430 C.cr . La mens rea requise pour cette infraction en est une d’intention générale[30]. [ 448 ] He then discussed the definition of the words "enjoyment" under subparagraph (

c) of

section 430 , in the following words: [70] À mes yeux, il ne fait aucun doute que les droits de propriété, de possession ou d’usage d’un bien emportent nécessairement celui d’en jouir pleinement, c’est-à-dire d’en tirer les satisfactions que ce bien est censé procurer à son détenteur légitime. [71] L’article 430(1)(

c) Cr.c. parle de « la jouissance ou l’exploitation légitime d’un bien ». Le mot « légitime » employé dans cette disposition constitue une indication révélatrice permettant de qualifier adéquatement la relation devant exister entre la victime et le bien objet du méfait. En droit criminel,

celui qui jouit légitimement d’un bien a nécessairement un intérêt suffisant dans ce bien pour en faire un usage sans entrave. [ 72] Ainsi, dès lors qu’une personne possède un intérêt légitime dans un bien, non seulement la loi prohibe-t-elle de priver cette personne de son droit à la possession du bien ou à son usage, mais elle interdit aussi de diminuer de manière plus que négligeable les attributs liés à ces droits en empêchant, en interrompant ou en gênant la jouissance ou l’exploitation légitime de ce bien. [ 449 ] Those who are accused of mischief may be convicted of this offence as soon as they are aware of the likely consequences of their actions, among others, by reducing by a more than trivial degree the attributes of property that are lawfully held by its owner. [ 450 ] The Court will not revisit the evidence heard at the voir dire concerning the mischief except to respond to the defendant's arguments.

V.

ANALYSIS [ 451 ] The defendant argues that because no 911 calls were made after midnight, her chants and prayer did not disturb her neighbours. [ 452 ] The Court cannot agree with this argument because the witnesses said that the noises the defendant made by praying harmed, in the case of the witness Wang, his focus when he worked from home, in the case of the witness Rond, her sleep was disrupted by the defendant's actions, and finally, in the case of the witness Plante, the noises were so disruptive that he had to increase his anti-anxiety medication. [ 453 ] She also argues that everything alleged against her is the result of a plot hatched by her neighbours to have her evicted from her apartment. [ 454 ] She drew this conclusion from the fact that when she sent a formal notice to the witness Wang, he began to take notes and record her. [ 455 ] Similarly, it was when the witness Plante received his formal notice that he began to call 911. [ 456 ] Again, the Court cannot agree with this argument because it was Officer Farley who asked the witness Plante to call 911 as soon as noises became intolerable and it was as a result of her threatening prayers that the witness Wang decided to note and record the noises coming from the defendant's unit. [ 457 ] Also, there is no evidence that the witness Rond plotted in any way whatsoever with witnesses Wang and Plante. [ 458 ] The defendant also submits that the police officers intimidated her because they tried to convince her to open the door to give her the statements in person instead of giving her the statements of offence and leaving. [ 459 ] The Court sees no bad faith on the part of the officers.

It is clear from their intervention that they were always polite to the defendant and that what they wanted was to speak with her to make the noise stop.

This was confirmed by listening to the recordings filed into the record by the defendant. [ 460 ] Finally, she submits several arguments relating to the credibility of her neighbours and the police officers, hoping to have their testimony rejected. [ 461 ] The Court completely disagrees with the defendant for the following reasons. [ 462 ] The witness Rond gave detailed and concise testimony. [ 463 ] She clearly explained how the defendant's actions disturbed her sleep, to the point where she had to ask her boss if she could nap at the hospital. [ 464 ] But more important, the Court did not sense any animosity toward the defendant, which adds to the witness Rond's credibility. [ 465 ] The witness Plante also testified credibly, admitting that he got angry with the defendant on October 25, 2019, painting himself as the bad guy that day, but explaining that he was exasperated by the defendant's behaviour. [ 466 ] His detailed testimony allowed the Court to fully understand what happened over the course of that year. [ 467 ] The witness Wang offered exhaustive, detailed, and indisputable evidence of the defendant’s actions.

[ 468 ] That said, the Court also believes the defendant's testimony because she corroborates in almost every point the testimony of her neighbours and the police. [ 469 ] However, and in spite of her claim that she did not bother her neighbours, the Court believes the contrary, for the following reasons: • She admitted that her soprano voice carries. • She said that the Bible dictates her actions, like praying, chanting, and making noise. • She indicated that at one point, her prayers had to be persistent and loud because they were weapons in the spiritual war she was waging on Satan. • Also, all the officers who testified, without exception, heard the noises coming from the defendant's unit. • They all describe the noises as noises and chants they could hear as soon as they exited the elevator. • The number of statements of offence issued during this period following 911 calls made by her neighbours. • Finally, she admitted that shortly before her arrest, she increased her prayers and chants because she was in a war zone. • The witness Rond's sleep was disrupted. • The witness Wang was disturbed when he worked from home. • The witness Plante suffered from anxiety.

VI. CONCLUSION [ 470 ] FOR THESE REASONS , the Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully obstructed the free enjoyment of property and accordingly she is convicted of the offence with which she is charged. Martine Leclerc, JMC Mtre Hugo Lalonde Counsel for the prosecution The defendant is self-represented Dates of hearing: August 29, 2022, August 30, 2022, August 31, 2022, September 1, 2022, September 2, 2022, and September 19, 2022, October 31, 2022, November 1, 2022, December 19, 2022, and January 20, 2023.