L'excuse légitime au sens de l'article 145.5.1 C.cr. constitue une question de fait laissée à l'appréciation du Tribunal

R. c. Lefebvre, 2011 QCCS 5278 (CanLII)

[8] CONSIDÉRANT que l'excuse légitime au sens de l'article 145.5.1 C.cr. constitue une question de fait laissée à l'appréciation du Tribunal;

24 Once the Crown proves the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the onus shifts to the accused to provide a lawful excuse on a balance of probabilities. When the issue of lawful justification or excuse arises, "the trial Judge must consider if the accused has proved a defence of lawful justification or excuse by a preponderance of evidence." See R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 35 at 44 (Ont. C.A.), and The Queen v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 at 1319.

25 Courts generally take a hard look at the lawful excuses, and compliance must be virtually im-possible. So, for example, excuses for failing to attend court because of severe illness or bad wea-ther have been accepted. See R. v. Coe (1971), 4 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (Ont. H.C.J.), and R. v. Kennedy (1972), 7 C.C.C. (2d) 522 (Que. Q.B.). In any particular case, it would be a question of fact whe-ther, for example, the illness or the weather was bad enough to prevent the accused from attending court.

R. v. Joseph Daniel Custance, [2005] M.J. No. 30.