Obstruct Police Lawyers Toronto

The definition of “obstruction” that has generally been applied by the court occurs when a person makes it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties. It is generally not a defence to argue that the police were eventually able to carry out their duties despite the attempt to obstruct them from doing so.

The Crown must first prove that there was an obstructing of a police officer. They must also prove that the police officer was acting pursuant to a lawful purpose. Next the Crown must prove that the obstructing affected the officer in the execution of a duty that he was then executing, and lastly they must prove that the person who obstructed the officer did so intentionally.

Those elements come from section 129 of the Criminal Code, which covers anyone who “resists or wilfully obstructs” a peace officer in the execution of their duty.

It is a hybrid offence. There are no felonies in Canada; instead, the Crown chooses whether to proceed by indictment, with a maximum of two years, or summarily, with a maximum of two years less a day, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

Obstructing a peace officer (section 129) is about interfering with an officer who is lawfully carrying out a duty, and carries up to two years. Obstructing justice (section 139) is intentionally attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice — for example, by dissuading a witness from testifying with threats or bribes — and carries up to 10 years. Causing police to investigate with a false report is public mischief (section 140), with up to five years.

Generally, no. Unless a law requires you to speak, you have the right to remain silent when police question you, whether or not you are detained or arrested. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the law imposes no duty to speak to or cooperate with the police, and that choosing not to help them is the exercise of a recognized liberty (R v Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50). Obstruction by doing nothing requires a legal duty to act. Lying to police is different: a false answer can be obstruction.

It depends on the circumstances of the case. Where the police are entitled to request a person’s name, it is incumbent on that person to provide a truthful answer to the question. A false answer may constitute an obstruction. However, in some cases, the police officer had no right to request a person’s identification. In those circumstances, it can be argued that they were not “in the execution of their duty” as required by section 129 of the Criminal Code — words the courts read as the lawful execution of a duty.

Once again, context is important. If a person is under a legal obligation to provide identification (such as to allow the officer to issue a valid ticket for speeding etc.) the failure to provide identification may amount to an obstruction of the police officer. However, if an officer simply demanded identification without lawful authority to do so, it would not meet the definition of an obstruction.

Not in every situation. There is no general duty to carry identification or to tell police who you are. A duty can arise where a law requires it — for example, where an officer has seen you commit an offence and needs your name to issue a ticket, as in Moore v The Queen, [1979] 1 SCR 195,, where the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a cyclist who ran a red light and refused to give his name. In Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act requires a driver to surrender their licence for inspection when a police officer demands it, and to give their correct name and address if they cannot or will not. If you are unsure, give your name and say nothing more until you have spoken to a lawyer.

In some cases, a person may be given a criminal record, placed on probation or given a fine. In more serious cases, or where the person has related criminal history, the punishment could amount to jail time.

It can end without a conviction. There is no minimum sentence, so a judge can grant an absolute or conditional discharge: you are found guilty but deemed not to have been convicted. Since July 18, 2026, the Criminal Code also requires police and prosecutors to consider a warning or a referral to a program instead of a prosecution where appropriate, and a charge must be dismissed if you fully complete an alternative measures program. Withdrawals and peace bonds are also common outcomes.