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 accused was charged with breaching a Long Term Supervision Order by failing to obey the law and keep the peace, contrary to s. 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

The count was severed from a multi-count indictment that included extortion, criminal harassment, and mischief allegations involving the same complainant.

A jury had previously convicted the accused of criminal harassment and mischief arising from the same period.

The court relied on those verdicts and evidence to determine whether the accused breached the supervision condition requiring him to obey the law.

The court concluded that the commission of the underlying offences while subject to the order constituted a breach and entered a finding of guilt.

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.