Criminal harassment

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision to issue a detention order instead of a conditional discharge, and argued that two specific conditions of the detention order were overly restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant threat to public safety and the joint submission of the parties.

However, the court found two conditions to be unreasonably restrictive: the requirement for "supervised" accommodation and the need for hospital consent for communication with his mother in addition to her own consent.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the word "supervised" from the accommodation condition and removing the hospital consent requirement from the communication condition.

The appellant, Carlos Zamora, appealed his sentence for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, seeking a conditional discharge instead of the conditional sentence of 90 days and 21 months probation imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was based on two grounds: that the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on deterrence and failed to properly consider a conditional discharge, and that the judge misapprehended evidence regarding aggravating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the sentencing judge's decision, affirming that the possibility of a conditional discharge was considered and that the aggravating factors were appropriately assessed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The applicant, David Bukoski, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The prosecution, involving 13 charges including criminal harassment, sexual assault, arson, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, had taken 71 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court calculated the net delay by subtracting defence-waived delay (5.5 months), defence delay due to applicant's illness (14 months), Crown/complainant circumstances (3 months), and pandemic impact (4 months), and defence's underestimation of trial time (10 months), resulting in a net delay of 34.5 months.

The court found the case to be "particularly complex" due to the nature of the evidence, including extensive internet communications, pseudonyms, international coordination, and the unique circumstances of witnesses.

The Crown was found to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate delay.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings, finding the remaining delay justified by the case's complexity.

David Grant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for harassment and breach of peace bond due to bipolar disorder and delusions, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.

The Board denied his request for an absolute discharge, continuing his detention with privileges at a forensic mental health care centre, and imposing contact restrictions.

Grant argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant public threat, lacking evidence for a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious criminal offence if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's expertise and finding its risk assessment reasonable, given Grant's continued delusions, cannabis use exacerbating his condition, and consistent fixation on the victim, concluding he would likely re-engage in criminal behaviour without supervision.

Michael Renzi appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and breach of probation, and the imposed sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding an alibi photograph and reached an unreasonable verdict given the totality of evidence, including phone and salon records.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and that the trial judge's verdict was reasonable, having carefully considered all evidence and credibility.

The sentence appeal, alleging the sentence was harsh and excessive, was also largely dismissed, though a probation condition regarding contact with the appellant's daughter was varied by consent to allow contact with her written and revocable consent.

The moving party sought a panel review of two prior orders from single judges of the Court of Appeal.

The first order dismissed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a peace bond decision, finding no merit in the proposed appeal.

The second order dismissed a motion for fresh evidence and witness summonses in an appeal related to stayed private prosecutions.

The panel dismissed both review motions, affirming the original decisions, finding no reversible errors or evidence of bias.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assaulting his former intimate partner on three occasions, breaking and entering, and criminal harassment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, arguing that the complainant's evidence was contradicted by text messages and photographs suggesting an ongoing relationship and lack of fear.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, affirming that a trial judge can accept parts of a witness's testimony and that victim behaviour does not always conform to stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed an Ontario Review Board order requiring his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint).

The transfer was necessitated by the appellant's persistent harassing and stalking behaviour towards female staff at CAMH, which had exhausted CAMH's resources and posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's decision-making process, no reasonable apprehension of bias from the panel's composition, and that the Board's decision to transfer was reasonable given the safety risks and the exhaustion of CAMH's resources, particularly the need for a male-only unit.

The appellant, convicted of criminal harassment, sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding that the appeal raised no issues of general importance and was devoid of merit, being entirely fact-based.

The court also upheld the publication ban previously imposed to prevent the appellant from continuing to post about the complainant.

The accused, Liam Stinson, is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of ante-mortem hearsay statements made by the deceased victim, Jamie Lynn Rose.

The Crown sought to admit these statements under the *res gestae* exception or the principled approach to hearsay, arguing their relevance to the deceased's state of mind, the accused's animus, motive, and identity.

The court applied the tests of necessity, reliability (procedural and substantive), and the probative value versus prejudicial effect.

Many statements were excluded due to lack of contemporaneousness, suspicious circumstances, contradictory evidence, or the declarant's motive to lie.

Other statements, particularly those made closer to the time of death and without reliability concerns, were admitted.

The court emphasized avoiding "trials within a trial" and undue prejudice from cumulative evidence.

This criminal trial concerned charges of voyeurism, unlawfully distributing an intimate video, assault causing bodily harm, and criminal harassment.

The complainant alleged the defendant took non-consensual intimate videos and photographs, distributed one such video, and engaged in assault and harassment.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible regarding non-consensual recording of intimate images, leading to convictions for voyeurism.

However, the Crown failed to prove the distribution of the intimate video due to lack of admissible evidence on how it was obtained by a third party.

The assault charge was dismissed, as the defendant's actions in retrieving his property were deemed a reasonable defence of property under the Criminal Code, and the injury was accidental.

The criminal harassment charge was also dismissed, as the complainant's actions did not demonstrate a fear for her safety despite the use of a tracking device.

This is an application by the Crown in a first-degree murder trial to admit 'extrinsic misconduct evidence,' comprising police occurrence reports, 911 calls, and ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, to friends and family.

The accused, Archie McKay, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder arising from a fire that killed Ms. Chapman and four children.

The Crown seeks to admit this evidence to prove the underlying offence of criminal harassment (s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code), establish the accused's state of mind (intent), and demonstrate motive and animus, which are probative of identity.

The accused argued that much of the evidence was irrelevant, lacked probative value, or was unreliable.

The court conducted an individual analysis of each piece of evidence, ruling some admissible for narrative, context, animus, motive, and to prove elements of criminal harassment, while deeming others inadmissible due to lack of relevance or probative value.

The admissibility of ante-mortem statements is subject to a further hearsay voir dire at trial.

Following a trial, Sandy Benyamin was found guilty of criminal harassment against his sister-in-law, Andrea Cheung, involving numerous phone calls and social media posts between April 4 and 6, 2021.

This marked his fourth conviction for criminal harassment.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence followed by 12 months probation and a DNA order, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month jail sentence, a two-year probation order with conditions, and a DNA order, emphasizing the need for denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's prior record and lack of remorse.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and breach of probation, marking his fifth conviction for criminal harassment.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for an 8-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding it inadequate given the aggravating factors, including the accused's extensive criminal record for similar offences, the harassment of a witness to a criminal offence, repeated violations of warnings and trespass orders, and intimidation of the victim's child.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and victim safety, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, followed by 3 years of probation, a lifetime s. 109 order, and a DNA order.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, mischief, extortion, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and breach of probation.

He appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning post-offence emails and the testimony of a defence witness, which he claimed undermined trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the emails (as the overlooked email was not part of the evidentiary record) and no trial unfairness.

The court also found no misapprehension of the defence witness's evidence, as the trial judge's reasons reconciled it with the complainant's testimony.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was not granted.

The accused, Gregory Potter, was found guilty of Criminal Harassment.

Prior to conviction, the Crown requested an assessment of Mr. Potter's mental condition at the time of the offence, pursuant to s.672.11(b) of the Criminal Code, to determine if he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The defence opposed, arguing Mr. Potter's mental status was not put into evidence and no medical reports were before the court.

The court found that there were reasonable grounds, based on Mr. Potter's delusional statements and behaviour during the trial and in his communications, to believe he may have been suffering from a mental disorder affecting his criminal responsibility.

The Crown's application for an NCR assessment was granted.

This is an appeal from convictions for sexual assault, assault, and criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed an error of law by discounting the accused's credibility on the basis that his evidence was "tailored" to fit Crown disclosure or evidence heard in court.

The court reiterated that such an inference is impermissible as it turns constitutional rights against the accused.

The error was deemed prominent in the trial judge's credibility assessment, which was the central issue.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, a police constable, was charged with entering a dwelling house without lawful excuse and with intent to commit an indictable offence (criminal harassment) under s. 349(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused did not have a lawful excuse to enter the complainant's residence, given the clear termination of their relationship and his deceptive conduct to gain entry.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to commit an indictable offence *at the point of entry*, as particularized in the information.

The accused's intent to harass was found to have formed *after* entry, when he decided to unlock a door for future access.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The appellant, Robert Gary Anderson, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conduct regarding the jury charge, an alleged juror falling asleep, or the imposed two-year suspended sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Antonio Ricciardi, appealed his convictions for 17 serious offences involving three women, including attempted kidnapping, confinement, criminal harassment, assault with disguise, and robbery, and his global sentence of 14 years incarceration.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's comprehensive and fair assessment of the evidence or in the global sentence imposed for the long list of criminal offences against vulnerable women.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.