Nova Scotia (Public Safety) v. Matheson, 2016 NSSC 365

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Citation: Nova Scotia (Public Safety) v. Matheson, 2016 NSSC 365 Date: 20161017 Docket: Syd No. 453976 Registry: Sydney Between: Director of Public Safety Applicant v. Brian Matheson (aka Brian “Gussie” Deruelle), Catherine Gouthro, Richard MacDonald and Andrea Smith Respondents Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray Written Decision: December 6, 2016 Subject: Safer Communities and Neighbourhood Act .

Summary: The Director of Public Safety applied for a Community Safety Order on the basis that the subject property was being used for the possession, use, consumption and sale of drugs. Result: Court was satisfied the Director had met its burden under the Act . As a result, the Order requested was granted with reasons given. Cases/Rules cited: Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act , S.N.S. 2006, c. 6; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Nova Scotia ( Public Safety) v. Matheson, 2016 NSSC 365 Date: 20161017 Docket: Syd No. 453976 Registry: Sydney Between: Director of Public Safety Applicant v.

Brian Matheson (aka Brian “Gussie” Deruelle), Catherine Gouthro, Richard MacDonald and Andrea Smith Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J.

Murray Heard: October 11, 2016, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Written Decision: October 14, 2016 Counsel: Glenn Anderson, Q.C. for the Director Brian Matheson (aka Brian “Gussie” Deruelle), self- represented; and Catherine Gouthro, self-represented By the Court: [ 1 ] The Director of Public Safety of Nova Scotia seeks a Community Safety Order in relation to property, a mobile home at 4 Briegh Park, Dominion, Nova Scotia. [ 2 ] The property is occupied by the Respondents, Brian Matheson, also known as Brian (Gussie) Deruelle and Catherine Gouthro.

The Respondents oppose the application. [ 3 ] The Director filed three affidavits in support of the Application. Two were sworn by peace officer, Keltie Jones. The third affidavit is that of Brian Bonnell, an officer with the RCMP. [ 4 ] Attached to Mr. Bonnell’s affidavit is a letter signed by the Respondents dated August 4, 2016. In it they state they are “not in agreement with your accusations” and that they are “peaceful people who abide by the laws”. [ 5 ] At the hearing held on October 11, 2016, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bonnell were both cross-examined by Mr. Deruelle. Mr.

Deruelle was permitted by the Court to give viva voce (oral) evidence on behalf of the Respondents. Catherine Gouthro did not testify. [ 6 ] The evidence of the Director focuses on three sets of complaints received in September of 2015, April, 2016 and July, 2016. [ 7 ] The affidavits speak of numerous visits to 4 Briegh Park for short stays. For example, paragraph 28 of Mr. Jones’ July 27 affidavit states that for the week of April 27 to May 3, 2016, approximately 46 people and/or vehicles attended the property, staying only minutes, often 1 to 3 minutes, maybe a bit longer. [ 8 ] Mr.

Deruelle gave evidence that in that past he has used and sold drugs out of his residences but denied doing so at 4 Briegh Park. He said he has sold drugs his whole life, and it’s really all he knows. He admitted to there being activity at 7 Briegh Park, but that it stopped, because his girlfriend, Catherine Gouthro, gave him an ultimatum. Stop selling or she was not staying. He says he did. He says he did his time. He says he got released April 30, 2015 and that when he “got out” he applied and got work on May 11, 2015.

He has continued to work since then, 50 – 60 hours per week and as it is full-time he is no longer involved in the drug trade. Mr. Deruelle says he served his time for past offences and he is “finished”. He is “tired” and no longer wants those kind of people, “drug addicts” around him. [ 9 ] Under section 7(1) of the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act , S.N.S. 2006, c. 6, the Director has the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the property at 4 Briegh Park, Dominion is:

a) Being habitually used for the possession, use, consumption and sale of drugs; and

b) The sale of drugs at the property negatively affects the safety and security of the neighbours and interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of their properties. [ 10 ] Paragraph 10 and 14 of Officer Bonnell’s affidavit refer to items seized at 7 Briegh Park on March 10, 2015 and on April 30, 2015. 10. Attached and marked as Exhibit 2 is a copy of an Exhibit Seizure Sheet dated March 10, 2015, showing the arrest of Gussie Deruelle and Cathy Gouthro at 7 Briegh Park and the seizure of, among other things, $1,100 in cash, 13 grams of marijuana, digital scales, baggies, 4 tablets of dilaudid and pills inside baggie.

I participated in the search. 14. I participated in the search of the dwelling of Gussie Deruelle at 4 Briegh Park on April 30, 2015. Gussie Deruelle and Cathy Gouthro were present at 4 Briegh Park at the time of the search by which we seized two methadone pills, 4 grams of cannabis marijuana, baggies, $350 in cash, digital scales, an unlabeled prescription pill bottle with a grey powder substance and an unlabled prescription pill bottle with empty hydromorphone capsules.

[ 11 ] In cross-examination Mr. Deruelle was asked if he was welcoming people to his residence at 7 Briegh Park to consume drugs to which he replied, yes. He also agreed those people transact drugs with each other stating, “if they do they do yeah”. He stated it was not just his house but also that of a Mr. MacPherson. Mr. Deruelle claimed to be a guest. [ 12 ] Mr. Deruelle was further asked if the use of drugs continued form 7 Briegh Park to when he moved to 4 Briegh Park, to which he replied, “Barely, barely, everything stayed down at 7 Briegh Park”. [ 13 ] The affidavit of Mr.

Bonnell, as noted contains evidence to the contrary. His evidence was not contradicted or affected in cross-examination. [ 14 ] Officer Keltie Jones was asked on cross-examination if the visitors could be friends, relatives or even Mr. Deruelle going to and from work, as well as his girlfriend. [ 15 ] Mr. Jones said it’s possible it could be any of those things, but he believed it was unlikely. [ 16 ] On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that the Director has met its burden in seeking the Order. Mr. Deruelle attempted to point to other people as being responsible.

He said one car is his and the other is his mother’s. He said people were visiting only to find out he had no drugs, that he had stopped. [ 17 ] Dr. Deruelle has a long history of drug activity by his own admission. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the drug activity did continue when the Respondents moved from 7 to 4 Briegh Park, as evidenced by the large number of visits for very short periods of time. [ 18 ] It was stated in Mr. Keltie Jones affidavit that after warnings were given, the activity would die down for a time.

Then subsequent surveillance and investigations, suggested it would start up again. Mr. Deruelle’s past drug convictions, of which there are many, speak for themselves. [ 19 ] In conclusion, I am satisfied that the activities give rise to a reasonable inference that the property is being habitually used for activities related to the possession, use, consumption, sale, transfer or exchange of a controlled substance in contravention of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19.

I am further satisfied that the community and neighbourhood are adversely affected by the activities. [ 20 ] I am further satisfied that the specific use, mainly drug activity, by its very nature negatively affects the safety and security of the neighbourhood and interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties. This is what gave rise to the various complaints in this matter. The Respondent landlord has advised the Court that he is not opposed to the Director’s application. [ 21 ] The Order in the form requested by the Director shall be issued.

In terms of closure of the property I am satisfied by their nature that the activities pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety and security of the community. [ 22 ] Order issued. Murray, J.