R v Fourman

R. v. Fourman

Court File No: 2860 999 00 3121712A
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace George A. Griffith | May 18, 2010 (heard), June 22, 2011 (decision)

Background

On a snowy January 6, 2011 morning, Natalia Fourman was driving her blue van west on Dean Avenue in Oshawa, taking her daughter to French immersion school at Wilson. Officer James Gillam was positioned in a parking lot at the intersection of Dean Avenue and Normandy Street as part of Durham Regional Police's annual back-to-school traffic enforcement blitz. The officer claimed he watched Fourman's van approach the stop sign and "roll through" without coming to a complete stop. He followed her and issued a ticket under section 136(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

But there was a problem with visibility. It was a cold day with snow on the ground, the stop lines were covered by snow, and Dean Avenue curves in an arch shape. The officer was positioned about 20 metres away from the stop sign, looking slightly uphill from a parking lot. Fourman, who had lived in the area for three years and drove this route daily, insisted she came to a complete stop at the crest of the hill where the stop sign was located.

Issues

1. Were the officer's notes adequate to support his testimony and the prosecution's case?
2. Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fourman failed to stop?

The Inadequate Notes Problem

The defence argued that Officer Gillam's notes were so sparse they violated disclosure requirements. His entire notation read: "Dean Normandy, In the 'zone', W/B roll thru sign, Blue van, Resident of area, Issued PON." That's it. The notes contained no details about the officer's specific location, his view of the intersection, weather conditions, or any of the circumstances he later testified about in court.

Justice Griffith relied on the principle from R. v. Odgers, which establishes that police officers have "an inherent duty to prepare complete and accurate notes." The court found that these cryptic notes were "insufficient and inadequate" — they didn't contain enough information to allow the defence to properly prepare their case or challenge the officer's testimony. The notes failed to record "significant events in the investigation" as required for proper disclosure.

Credibility and Reasonable Doubt

Even setting aside the notes issue, the court found the officer's testimony problematic when weighed against Fourman's evidence. She testified clearly about her familiarity with the intersection, her daily routine, her knowledge of police enforcement in the area, and her specific recollection of coming to a complete stop that morning. She explained that the officer was positioned down the hill and wouldn't have had a clear view of where she actually stopped at the crest.

The court applied the principle from R. v. W(D) — when faced with conflicting testimony, if the defendant's evidence raises a reasonable doubt, they must be acquitted. Justice Griffith found Fourman's testimony "consistent and reliable" compared to the officer's account, which lacked the detail needed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaway

Police officers can't convict you with sloppy notes and vague testimony — they need to document their observations properly and prove their case with specifics.

This case shows that inadequate police notes can be a viable defence strategy, and that clear, detailed testimony from a defendant who knows the area well can create reasonable doubt even against police officer testimony.