The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment.
He argued that evidence of his criminal record should not have been admitted, that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on 'repeatedly communicated' instead of 'engaged in conduct', and that the reasonable doubt instruction was flawed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the criminal record evidence was relevant to the complainant's reasonable fear, that communicating constitutes conduct, and that the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt.
