This is an old revision of the document!
Table of Contents
R. c. Bellerive, 2004 CanLII 72984 (QC CA)
Original Source: R. c. Bellerive, 2004 CanLII 72984 (QC CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g0fdx>, retrieved on 2026-09-01.
COURT OF APPEAL
PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC
DISTRICT OF QUÉBEC
File No.: COURT OF APPEAL
200-10-001536-031
File No.: TRIAL
400-36-000260-014 - 400-01-016396-996
HEARING MINUTES
DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2004
| CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES | JEAN-LOUIS BAUDOUIN, J.C.A. |
| LOUISE OTIS, J.C.A. | |
| FRANCE THIBAULT, J.C.A. |
| APPELLANT | COUNSEL |
|---|---|
| HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN | Me. JACQUES MERCIER |
| RESPONDENT | COUNSEL |
|---|---|
| MICHEL BELLERIVE | Mr. MAURICE BIRON (Biron, Spain) |
| NATURE OF APPEAL: | Driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and driving a motor vehicle while impaired (acquittal) |
| On appeal of a judgment rendered | JULY 24, 2003 |
| by the Honourable Justice | JACQUES J. LÉVESQUE |
| of the following Court: | SUPERIOR |
| in the district of | TROIS-RIVIÈRES |
| CLERK: YOLAINE DUBÉ (TD1206) |
11:40 AM Oral submissions of Me. Mercier
11:44 AM Oral submissions of Me. Biron
12:05 AM Reply of Me. Mercier
12:08 AM End of submissions
BY THE COURT
DECISION
[1] In a very brief judgement, the judge of the Superior Court overturned the verdict pronounced by the trial judge and entered acquittals on the two counts of driving while impaired by alcohol and driving after having consumed a quantity of alcohol such that the accused's blood alcohol level surpassed 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
[2] Essentially, the judge of the Superior Court took issue with the trial judge's failure to follow the analysis proposed by the Supreme Court in R. v. W.(D.)1).
[3] To begin, the judge of the Superior Court determined that the trial judge “[TRANSLATED] rejected the credibility of the accused's testimony in finding, without further explanation, that his explanations could not be believed”. However, a reading of the Court of Québec's judgment reveals - to the contrary - a careful consideration of the evidence admitted at trial and clear reasons based on which the trial judge concluded that the accused's testimony was not credible. He wrote, in particular:
[TRANSLATED]
I must first consider the credibility of the witnesses within the totality of the evidence. First of all, Mr. Bellerive testified very nervously, as demonstrated by his frequently-shaking hands. He testified without conviction and hesitated on multiple points. He hesitated while giving the name of the person who he thought was at Bar Richelieu; - hesitation as if he were making up a name. He was very evasive on the origin of the beer in his garage; - giving me the impression that he made up this part of the story. I do not believe the explanations which he gave to the Court of the way he drives, no more than on his difficulty to blow into the screening device. Given his gait, I find that on that day, he was affected by a large amount of alcohol.
I rely on the following pieces of evidence. First: Mr. Bellerive drove at night without turning on his lights. Second: he crossed the road to drive in the right lane, then returned to the left lane, then going back further into the right lane. Third: he turned at an intersection by encroaching, without reason, into the other land. Forth: Mr. Bellerive smelled of alcohol. Fifth: He was repetitive, as demonstrated by his repetition of the same thing. Sixth: His gait was slow and ranged from passable to shaky. Second: He blew incorrectly into the screening device to try to leave.
The totality of all these factors convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that on the night of the events, Mr. Bellerive was impaired by alcohol rendering him incapable of driving a motor vehicle.
[4] On the second issue raised by the judge of the Superior Court