Three appellants challenged convictions for criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code and two also appealed sentence.
The court rejected constitutional arguments that the provision was unconstitutionally vague, imposed impermissible constructive liability, or violated freedom of expression contrary to ss. 7 and 2(b) of the Charter.
The court also dismissed case-specific evidentiary, unreasonable verdict, indictment timing, and standard of proof arguments.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted to two appellants, but both sentence appeals were dismissed.
