R v G.

Our client was charged with obstructing a peace officer under section 129(a) of the Criminal Code, a serious offence with significant consequences. The allegation arose from an early morning incident at our client’s residence, where police claimed he had interfered with their investigation by failing to provide his name and being uncooperative.

From the outset, we argued that the charge was entirely unfounded both in fact and law.

In submissions to the Crown, we emphasized that our client had not been arrested or even detained at the time the officer requested his name. Accordingly, he was under no legal obligation to identify himself. In fact, well-established case law confirms that Canadians are not required to answer police questions absent a lawful arrest or statutory duty.

Moreover, even if the Crown’s version of events were accepted, our client ultimately did provide his name and offered what information he could. His interaction with the officer was, at most, mildly argumentative—hardly conduct that rises to the level of criminal obstruction.

After considering our submissions, the Crown withdrew the charge. Our client left the courtroom without a criminal record.

Key Point: You are not legally required to answer police questions unless lawfully arrested or otherwise compelled by statute. Misunderstanding your rights or expressing frustration is not a crime.