The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.
He argued the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to call reply evidence on a collateral issue regarding how he obtained an invitation to the complainant's dinner party.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the reply evidence was admissible because the issue took on new significance during the defence case.
The court also found the sentence, which included a suspended sentence and three years' probation, was not clearly unreasonable given the persistent nature of the harassment.
The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
