Criminal harassment

This decision addresses the charge of criminal harassment under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on whether the creation and content of a website by the accused, Mahyar Radmehr, constituted threatening conduct causing the complainant, Ms. K., to reasonably fear for her safety.

The Court found that while the website caused embarrassment, anxiety, and frustration to Ms. K., it was not designed as a tool of intimidation to instill fear.

The Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court also declined to impose a common law peace bond requested by the Crown, finding no reasonable fear to justify such an order.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Wilfredo Martinez-Calderon guilty of criminal harassment under s. 264(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code for conduct towards a 13-year-old complainant.

The defendant approached the complainant at a bus stop, offered her a ride, and after refusal, watched her until she boarded a bus, then followed the bus in his car.

The court accepted the complainant’s credible testimony and video evidence, rejecting the defendant’s explanation and credibility.

The decision clarifies the application of mens rea and actus reus in criminal harassment, emphasizing an objective standard for threatening conduct and recklessness or willful blindness regarding the victim’s fear.

The appellant, Ahmed Ali Debouk, appealed his convictions for extortion, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breaching a non-communication condition, arguing his guilty pleas were involuntary due to pre-trial detention pressures and that his Charter rights were violated by non-disclosure of a voice mail recording.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either ground, holding that the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that there was no evidence of non-disclosure or prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Abdoulie Ceesay of criminal harassment charges related to alleged repeated communications and visits to his former girlfriend, Eunice Terry Mwara.

The court emphasized the high burden of proof on the Crown to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant evidentiary weaknesses including speculative identification of Mr. Ceesay’s car, conflicting accounts of communication frequency, and the absence of independent evidence supporting claims of prior assaultive behaviour.

The judge also considered Mr. Ceesay’s lawful authority to communicate in order to retrieve his debit card, which was in Ms. Mwara’s possession.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the elements of the offence, including reasonable fear and knowledge of harassment, leading to a not guilty verdict.

This decision involves a complex sentencing of K.T. for multiple sexual offences including criminal harassment, indecent communications, child pornography, luring, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16.

The court carefully considered the offender’s mental health, intellectual functioning, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The judge imposed consecutive sentences as mandated by the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This decision addresses multiple criminal charges against Yinuo Liu, including assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and impersonation of a peace officer.

The case primarily hinges on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, Ms. Yu, whose testimony was found to be inconsistent, evasive, and motivated by animus and retribution.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including text messages, social media posts, and police testimony, and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Liu intended to impersonate a police officer or that he assaulted, confined, or harassed Ms. Yu.

The court acquitted Mr. Liu on all counts, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Silvano Lochner of criminal harassment under s. 264(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with police officer Douglas Letsche and his family members over a period spanning from 2022 to 2024.

The communications, primarily emails, related to an incident from 2006 involving the tasering of Lochner’s disabled brother during the execution of a Feeney warrant.

Despite the absence of overt threats, the court found that the volume, persistence, and personal nature of the emails, especially those sent to Letsche’s brother-in-law in March 2024 referencing personal family information, caused Letsche to reasonably fear for his safety and that of his family.

The court emphasized the defendant’s recklessness in continuing communications despite clear indications that contact was unwelcome and the escalation in targeting family members.

The appellant, Milad Babadi, appealed his convictions for uttering threats and criminal harassment, as well as the sentence imposed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not informed or voluntary.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel’s representation was competent, that the appellant’s mental health issues were properly considered, and that the pleas were voluntary.

The court also denied a request for a sealing order and publication ban on medical information, emphasizing the open court principle.

This decision concerns a 13-count indictment against David Bukoski, including criminal harassment, distribution of intimate images, arson, conspiracy, and sexual assault.

The case centers on the aftermath of a breakup between S.M., a Canadian teenager, and Mr. Bukoski, an American, and the extensive harassment and criminal conduct that followed, much of it perpetrated online.

The court found Mr. Bukoski guilty of criminal harassment of S.M. and her mother, distribution of intimate images, and sexual assault, but acquitted him on the arson and conspiracy counts due to reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the evidence, credibility assessments, and the application of legal principles to complex facts involving internet-facilitated crime.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence for Baskaran Balasooriyan, convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a 12-year-old child, mischief, criminal harassment, and breach of release order.

The court considered the applicability of the Kienapple principle to stay counts, the availability of a s. 161 order to protect children, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order.

The judge rejected the defence's proposed conditional sentence and stay of mischief, emphasizing the high moral culpability, risk to the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed included 420 days custody for attempted abduction (fully credited for presentence custody), 60 days for possession, and a suspended sentence for breach, followed by probation, DNA, s. 161, and s. 109 orders.

This decision addresses the issue of consent in a sexual assault trial involving Seungjin Lee, who was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

The court carefully analyzed conflicting testimonies regarding the events at a hotel room following a date, focusing on whether the complainant, S.K., consented to sexual activity.

The judge found reasonable doubt regarding the sexual assault charges due to inconsistencies and ambiguities in the evidence, ultimately acquitting Lee of sexual assault and forcible confinement but convicting him of criminal harassment based on his admitted conduct and evidence.

The accused, Alex Beseiso, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the timeline of the proceedings, including periods of delay and the reasons for them, and found that the majority of the delay was attributable to the defence, particularly due to the accused's absence from Canada and failure to attend his trial.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a person under 14, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession to find knowledge of the stolen vehicle.

For the attempted abduction, the court found the accused's repeated attempts to lure the child into his car constituted enticement with intent to deprive parents of possession.

The mischief charge was upheld as the accused's conduct interfered with the victim's enjoyment of the public park.

Criminal harassment was proven as the accused's repeated communication caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety, and the accused was reckless as to whether his conduct would cause harassment.

The accused, Richard Hannell, was found guilty of criminal harassment against a news reporter, E.T. The accused repeatedly followed E.T. to her work locations, took photographs without her knowledge, and posted numerous tweets expressing romantic interest and later anger, including a disturbing email suggesting she should die.

Despite police warnings, the accused persisted in his conduct, causing E.T. to fear for her safety, leading her employer to remove her from the morning show.

The court found the Crown proved all elements of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused's implausible and inconsistent testimony.

The offender, Kevin Goudreau, was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and one count of breaching his probation order, stemming from a loud, racist, and homophobic rant in his backyard that terrified his gay neighbours.

Two counts of uttering death threats were stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the hateful language and significant impact on the victims (who were forced to move), and mitigating factors such as the offender's recent sobriety and completion of rehabilitation programs.

The Crown sought six months of incarceration, while the offender advocated for a conditional sentence.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.

The final sentence included intermittent incarceration and a three-year probation order with specific, tailored conditions, such as restrictions on public expression of hate and alcohol consumption outside the home, aimed at protecting the community and facilitating the offender's reintegration.

The defendant, Shakara Walker, faced charges of publishing a defamatory libel and criminal harassment following a contentious separation and dispute over shared property with the complainant.

The Crown stayed the defamatory libel charge.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge, finding that while the defendant's social media posts and actions were immature and petty, they did not meet the legal threshold for criminal harassment, nor did they cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his physical or psychological safety.

The defendant, Kevin Goudreau, was charged with two counts of uttering threats to cause death, two counts of criminal harassment by repeatedly communicating, and one count of breaching his probation order.

The charges arose from a loud, racist, and homophobic rant in his backyard, heard by his gay neighbours.

The court found that Goudreau knowingly conveyed threats and repeatedly communicated with the complainants, causing them to fear for their safety.

The court determined that "repeatedly" could mean "persistently" in the context of a lengthy, continuous tirade.

Goudreau was found guilty on all counts, with the court reserving judgment on whether the uttering threats charges should be conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Dustin Fahey, faced five criminal charges arising from domestic incidents with his former spouse, Andrea Randell, and her mother, Jeanette Randell.

The charges included threatening, unlawful confinement, criminal harassment, and assault.

The court found Mr. Fahey guilty of threatening Andrea Randell and criminally harassing her, based on credible testimony and extensive text message evidence demonstrating a pattern of manipulative and relentless communication.

However, the court dismissed the charges of unlawful confinement and assault due to insufficient or unclear evidence.

The judge rejected the accused's claim of memory loss, finding it untruthful and not a valid defence.

The appellant appealed convictions for non-consensual distribution of intimate images, criminal harassment, extortion by libel, and mischief to computer data.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance and erred by allowing the trial to proceed without counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial was fair, the judge provided adequate assistance, and the appellant's actions suggested an attempt to delay proceedings rather than a genuine inability to secure counsel.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of criminal harassment against the accused, E.T. The complainant, after ending a brief relationship with E.T. due to his controlling and aggressive nature, received over 180 unwanted phone calls and 60 text messages from him, including calls to her workplace, causing her significant distress and fear.

The central issue was whether the complainant's subjective fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and concluded that the accused's relentless and unwanted contact constituted harassment.

The court determined that the complainant's fear for her safety, encompassing psychological and emotional security, was objectively reasonable given the accused's past behaviour, controlling nature, and persistent contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The Crown successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.