Criminal harassment

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed following conviction on multiple charges including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, simple assault, threatening to cause death, mischief, and criminal harassment, as well as guilty pleas to breach of recognizance and breach of probation.

The trial judge imposed a global sentence of nine years less four years credit for time served.

The appellant argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit and sought a reduction of two years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's approach and noting that sentencing ranges are guidelines, not straitjackets, and that the trial judge had adequately explained her reasons rooted in the facts.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated November 16, 2017.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2012 for criminal harassment and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Board found the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety due to his psychotic disorder, active substance use disorder, lack of prosocial behaviour and motivation, and continued use of marijuana despite clinical advice against it.

The Board imposed a conditional discharge with detention order provisions.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding he constituted a significant threat and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with monthly reporting requirements.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable based on evidence that the appellant intended to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged, had persistent persecutory delusions, and had a history of cannabis use that exacerbated his mental condition.

The court found it reasonable for the Board to conclude that absolute discharge would likely result in medication cessation, decompensation, and increased risk of threatening behaviour.

The accused was convicted of extortion and sexual assault following a six-day trial, and subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple additional charges including breaches of probation, criminal harassment, uttering threats, luring minors, and making sexually explicit material available to minors.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, with the accused having received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing considered the offender's borderline intelligence, his pattern of targeting young women and girls through online manipulation, and the serious harm caused to the victim.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with emphasis on treatment at a specialized facility.

The defendant was charged with nine offences arising from a tumultuous marital relationship: uttering threats to cause death, three counts of assault, wilful damage to property, criminal harassment, and three counts of voyeurism.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the credibility of the complainant and her children.

The defendant denied all allegations and asserted the complainant fabricated evidence to destroy him.

The court found the complainant generally credible despite her delayed reporting and attempts at reconciliation.

The defendant was found guilty of assault on three dates, two counts of voyeurism, but acquitted on the threat charge, property damage charge, and criminal harassment charge.

The voyeurism convictions were upheld despite the defendant's public good defence, as the court found no objective evidence that the surreptitious recordings served any public purpose.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of mischief under $5,000 for defacing transit shelters with anti-Muslim graffiti in the Durham region.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 4-6 months followed by probation with counselling requirements, emphasizing general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with community service and counselling.

The court imposed a 5-month jail sentence followed by 15 months probation, finding that a community-based sentence would not meet the principles of sentencing given the hate-motivated nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history of breaches, and the need for general deterrence in the community.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence imposed following his conviction for intimidation, criminal harassment, and two counts of assault.

The appellant did not challenge the validity of the dangerous offender designation but contested the trial judge's decision to impose an indeterminate sentence rather than a long-term supervision order.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: misapprehension of evidence regarding treatment refusal, misapprehension of evidence regarding burnout in aging offenders, application of the wrong test for manageability in the community, and an unfair burden placed on the defence to demonstrate immediately available resources.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the indeterminate sentence.

The accused was convicted of criminal harassment contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code after persistently pursuing a man from her church despite his repeated refusals and the intervention of church officials.

The court found that underlying mental health issues significantly reduced the accused's moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, including conditions prohibiting contact with the complainant and church members, requiring attendance at mental health counselling, and imposing a 10-year firearms prohibition under s. 109 and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code for non-consensually distributing intimate images of the complainant on a pornographic website.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found the offence to be serious given the prevalence of non-consensual sexting, the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's degree of responsibility.

However, the court considered the accused's exemplary character, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, guilty plea, and the collateral consequences already suffered.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, no contact with the complainant, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

The defendant was found guilty of mischief for video recording women's buttocks at Woodbine Beach without consent and acquitted of voyeurism and criminal harassment.

At sentencing, the court imposed seven days intermittent incarceration and 24 months probation with conditions including non-attendance at Woodbine Beach and no contact with the victims.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite mitigating factors, finding that the defendant's prior 2009 conditional discharge for identical conduct, combined with the significant impact on victims and the defendant's lack of insight, warranted a custodial sentence to protect the public interest and deter similar offences.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and two counts of failure to comply with probation.

While on probation for prior criminal harassment of another woman, he repeatedly contacted the complainant via Facebook despite police caution and her non-response.

The accused exhibited signs of erotomania and a delusional disorder, believing the complainant reciprocated his affections despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months imprisonment with 3 years probation, including strict no-contact conditions and mandatory mental health treatment.

The accused was charged with three counts of criminal harassment against Lisa Aube, Brent Aube, and Claude Aube between April 16 and December 16, 2013.

The Crown alleged that the accused sent repeated written communications to various recipients falsely claiming that the Aubes had abducted two children and demanding DNA testing.

The Crown established that the accused sent the communications from computers at the Mississauga Central Library using a library card registered in his name.

The trial proceeded with an amicus curiae assisting the self-represented accused.

The court found all elements of criminal harassment established, including identity of the sender, repetitive communications, harassment of the complainants, knowledge or recklessness regarding the harassment, and reasonable fear for safety.

Charter applications challenging the conviction were dismissed.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The applicant sought to overturn a firearms officer's decision to revoke his licence to possess and acquire firearms.

The firearms officer revoked the licence based on concerns about the applicant's responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, citing a pattern of aggressive and irrational behaviour, multiple criminal harassment charges, a bitter feud with his cousin, threatening communications with a former girlfriend, and a suicide attempt.

The court upheld the revocation, finding the firearms officer's decision was clearly reasonable and that the applicant lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners.

The court found the applicant's credibility severely compromised by his inconsistent statements and pattern of refusing to accept adverse decisions.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and criminal harassment following an incident on September 23, 2013, in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Crown alleged that the accused stabbed the victim with a knife, wounding her on the neck, with the specific intent to kill her.

The accused had previously engaged in a controlling relationship with the victim, using self-harm as a manipulation tactic.

After the victim ended the relationship, the accused sent numerous threatening emails from China detailing a plan to kill the victim and then commit suicide.

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after the court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the specific intent to kill the victim.

The criminal harassment charge was resolved by guilty plea.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act and criminal harassment.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the culprit.

The complainant, a 17-year-old retail worker, identified the defendant as the man who exposed himself to her in her store and subsequently appeared at the mall wearing glasses.

The complainant made a photo line-up identification with 85-90% certainty and testified she was 100% certain the defendant was the man captured on mall security camera footage.

The defendant denied the charges and testified he only wears glasses for reading purposes.

Three defence witnesses corroborated that the defendant does not wear glasses except when reading.

The court found that while the Crown's case would have resulted in conviction if unanswered, the defence evidence regarding the defendant's glasses-wearing habits raised sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment under section 264(3) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant through voicemail messages over several days in July 2013, following an encounter at church where the complainant made clear she wanted no further contact.

The Crown sought to prove that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her personal safety.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought an application for a directed verdict.

The court found that while the complainant was clearly upset and wanted the contact to cease, she did not testify that she feared for her safety.

The court granted the directed verdict and acquitted the accused, finding that the essential element of fear for safety required by section 264 had not been established by the Crown's evidence.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment against two complainants arising from a dispute over computer repair services.

The complainants alleged the accused made repeated calls with heavy breathing, sent threatening text messages, and made verbal threats regarding the return of a computer.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed his phone number always appeared on caller ID.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and consistent, but determined that while the accused's conduct was rude and disregarded basic civility, the complainants did not experience a reasonable fear for their safety as required by the criminal harassment statute.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with six counts of criminal harassment under Section 264 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew the sixth count at trial.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the remaining five counts.

The Crown signaled its intention to seek a finding of not criminally responsible following trial.

The trial focused on the accused's conduct toward the complainants, Mark and Donna McBride, spanning from 2000 to 2012.

Key evidence included the accused's name change to McBride in January 2012, surveillance of the complainants' residence, and extensive journals documenting the accused's obsessive interest in Mark McBride.

The court found the accused guilty on counts four and five (threatening conduct causing fear for safety) but dismissed counts one, two, and three (following and repeated communication).

The court did not enter convictions but made findings of guilt only.

The accused pleaded guilty to twelve charges arising from a domestic relationship involving multiple assaults, unlawful confinement, extortion, threats, obstruction of justice, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, credited on a 1.5:1 basis for two years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and her family, anger management counselling, and weapons prohibitions.

The accused was charged with forcible confinement, threatening bodily harm, assault, and criminal harassment arising from events on March 20, 2011, involving his former romantic partner.

The Crown's case consisted primarily of the victim's testimony.

The assault charge was dismissed at the conclusion of the Crown's case for lack of prima facie case.

Following trial, the accused was acquitted on all remaining charges.

The court found reasonable doubt on the confinement charge regarding whether the victim's presence in the vehicle was unwilling, on the threat charge regarding whether the words conveyed a genuine threat in context, and on the harassment charge regarding whether the conduct caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety.