Janice R. Johnson

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for criminal harassment, mischief, and breach of a Long-Term Supervision Order.

The respondent had a lengthy history of stalking and harassing former intimate partners.

The court found that the criminal harassment convictions constituted serious personal injury offences, as they caused severe psychological damage to the victim.

The court declared the respondent a Dangerous Offender, imposing a determinate global sentence of 6 years (reduced to 2.5 years after pre-trial custody credit) and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The accused was charged with two counts of robbery involving two separate taxi drivers on consecutive nights.

In both incidents, two men entered the taxi, directed the driver to a location, and then robbed the driver using a weapon while demanding cash, cell phones, and keys.

The Crown relied on the consistent testimony of the taxi drivers, onboard CCTV camera images, and a palm print found on one of the vehicles.

The court found the evidence of identity and participation compelling, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding the reliability of the CCTV images and the victims' observations.

The accused was found guilty as a party to both robberies.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code seeking a publication ban prohibiting disclosure of the complainant’s identity in a prosecution involving allegations of criminal harassment and extortion arising from a personal relationship.

The court considered the statutory factors under s. 486.5(7) and the open court principle, applying the test articulated in R. v. Mentuck.

The evidence indicated that publication of the complainant’s identity could expose her to significant harm, including employment consequences, because the alleged extortion involved threats to publicize the relationship.

The court concluded that a limited ban referring to the complainant only by initials was necessary for the proper administration of justice and that the salutary effects outweighed any deleterious impact on openness.