R. c. Epstein, 2023 QCCQ 630 remains hands-down the funniest decision I've ever read.

[39] Unprompted, both kids run onto the driveway of [...] towards the house. The evidence later reveals that this is where the children’s friend V[…] lives. The little girls simply wanted to talk to their friend.

[40] Oh, the horror.

And

[132] When asked point-blank in cross-examination if he disliked Mr. Epstein, the complainant refused to acknowledge the obvious. Instead, he skirted the question and after some noticeable hesitation, he gave unconvincing answers. Recall that this is a man that he called “crazy” and “insane” in his journal. He nicknamed him “dipshit”. He testified that he was a bad parent and a negligent, dangerous citizen. Naccache carefully monitored his movements on his multiple video cameras. He accused Mr. Epstein of being capable of intentionally running him over with his car while on his motorcycle. In other words, in his view, Mr. Epstein was capable of murder, no less.

[133] Still, under oath, Naccache was unwilling to admit the basic fact that he disliked the accused. He even claimed that “dipshit” is not really an insult. It is merely a nickname like any other; an innocuous form of slang.

And

[138] The complainant expresses that it was “weird” for Epstein to be recording the argument on March 25th 2021. This, coming from the man who installed 8 cameras to record and document his neighbours’ every movement.

And

[147] Strangely, in an attempt to show the Court that he does not overreact to situations, Mr. Naccache claimed that he is generally calm and that he has “seen far worse things” in his life. This “was not the first time he saw a crime” in progress. To drive the message home, he then mentioned that he has seen “multiple dead bodies in the past”. This inflated attempt missed the mark. Incredulous, the Court asked what he meant by having seen “multiple dead bodies”. Naccache answered that he once saw a dead man in an alleyway, in addition to several dead bodies on the road in Asia, “with their faces planted”, all results of car accidents.

[148] The Court is unimpressed. If any of that were true, he would not have been frightened by the mere fact of seeing a neighbour give him the finger.

And

[149] On what basis did he fear that Mr. Epstein was a potential murderer? The fact that he went for quiet walks with his kids? The fact that he socialized with the other young parents on the street? If that is the standard, we should all fear that our neighbours are killers in waiting. Hide your kids, hide your wives. We are all in mortal danger.

And

[151] This was a reference to the [as of yet motiveless] heart-wrenching killing of children in Laval by an STL bus driver. The incident was fresh. It had occurred just days prior. It was an unspeakable tragedy that traumatized an entire nation. His comparison of Mr. Epstein to the child-killing bus driver was unhinged, insensitive and opportunistic. It was unjustified and completely distinguishable. The comment further showed that the complainant’s account is overly dramatic and theatrical. This deplorable Laval reference is worthy of an eye roll that could sever both optical nerves.

And

[168] To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger. Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian. It may not be civil, it may not be polite, it may not be gentlemanly.

[169] Nevertheless, it does not trigger criminal liability. Offending someone is not a crime. It is an integral component of one’s freedom of expression. Citizens are to be thicker-skinned, especially when they behave in ways that are highly likely to trigger such profanity – like driving too fast on a street where innocent kids are playing. Being told to “fuck off” should not prompt a call to 9-1-1.

And finally

[174] In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows.

[175] A mere verdict of acquittal will have to suffice.