Criminal harassment

The applicant sought leave to appeal his convictions for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and causing a disturbance.

The applicant was convicted at trial and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

On this motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the applicant raised three grounds of appeal characterized as questions of law: alleged undue deference to the trial judge's curtailment of questioning regarding an abuse of process application; alleged error in concluding the applicant abandoned a Charter s. 11(b) application; and alleged error in the trial judge's misstatement of the legal test for threatening.

The Court of Appeal found that the first two grounds did not involve pure questions of law, and the third ground involved mixed fact and law with little significance beyond the specific case.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal from his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent test for leave to appeal, requiring either a clear error of law or an issue of public importance.

The court found that the appellant failed to meet this test, as he challenged factual findings and credibility determinations made by the trial judge rather than identifying errors in the appellate judge's decision.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the complainant's evidence regarding the poisoning of her cat was not relied upon, that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, and that the appellant's conduct constituted criminal harassment.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that detained an NCR accused who had been under the Board's jurisdiction for over a decade following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Board determined the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety despite fresh evidence from a clinical forensic psychologist indicating low risk on stalking-specific assessment tools.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that the evidence fell short of establishing a significant threat to public safety and that the Board had effectively reversed the burden of proof by relying solely on a moderate-risk HCR-20 V3 assessment without proper expert contextualization.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and two-year custodial sentence imposed following his conviction for criminal harassment and four counts of failure to comply with probation orders.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that criminal harassment constituted a serious personal injury offence and in finding a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing likelihood of inflicting severe psychological damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dangerous offender designation and sentence, finding the trial judge's findings were well-supported by evidence and that the sentencing approach properly emphasized the least intrusive sentence required under the statutory scheme.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment by threatening conduct based on her legal name change to that of Mark McBride, with whom she had been obsessed for over a decade.

The trial judge found her not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) due to Delusional Disorder, Erotomanic Type.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the NCRMD verdict was tainted by legal error.

The trial judge had conflated the issues of whether the appellant knew her act was wrong with whether her mental disorder rendered her incapable of knowing it was wrong.

The court substituted convictions and imposed a conditional discharge with one year probation.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 years for attempted murder, along with 1.5 years consecutive on two counts of failure to comply with probation.

The appellant had repeatedly harassed a female acquaintance, was convicted of criminal harassment, and subsequently appeared at her home armed with weapons and homemade bombs.

During a confrontation, he stabbed a family member multiple times, inflicting serious injuries.

The Court of Appeal upheld the attempted murder sentence as appropriate and within the sentencing range for such offences, but allowed the appeal in part by making the failure to comply sentences concurrent rather than consecutive, reducing the overall sentence from 16.5 years to 16 years before credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his sentence for criminal harassment, careless use of a firearm, threatening to cause bodily harm, and two breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of two years and six months, reduced by 18 months to reflect 12 months actual pre-sentence custody.

The appellant challenged the sentencing decision on multiple grounds, including the failure to give additional credit for interim release conditions, the characterization of the firearm use, and post-sentence rehabilitative efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's discretionary decisions.

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment, breach of recognizance, and breach of probation.

He sought to strike his guilty pleas, arguing they were not voluntary.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to strike the pleas, noting that the appellant was represented by counsel, personally entered his guilty pleas, addressed the court before sentencing, and was actively involved in the proceedings.

The court held that the appellant's dissatisfaction with the sentence did not undermine the voluntariness of his pleas.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, breach of recognizance (x2), and pointing a firearm, as well as his sentence.

The appellant pled guilty to all offences except pointing a firearm, which proceeded to trial.

The trial judge found the appellant's testimony not credible and convicted him based on the evidence.

The appellant raised concerns regarding territorial jurisdiction, misuse of his criminal record, and the trial judge's assessment of the victim's credibility.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the trial judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal from conviction.

The appellant also sought a one-month sentence reduction to complete his remaining time in a provincial institution, which the Court of Appeal declined to grant.

The appeal from sentence was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order for his care.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

The Board accepted a joint submission from the appellant's counsel and physician to continue detention with increased community passes.

The appellant argued the Board erred in accepting the joint submission without properly discharging its inquisitorial duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to rely on the joint submission and had conducted its own inquiry concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for criminal harassment appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that he constituted a significant threat to public safety and should be transferred between secure forensic units.

The appellant had been detained in the mental health system for over ten years.

Fresh evidence from the appellant's treating psychiatrist and a clinical forensic psychologist using a stalking-specific risk assessment tool concluded the appellant no longer posed a significant threat and was entitled to an absolute discharge.

The majority allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board for fresh determination.

The dissenting judge would have granted an absolute discharge directly, finding the fresh evidence uncontradicted and unequivocal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12 years imprisonment following his guilty plea to counselling to commit murder and criminal harassment of his estranged wife.

The appellant also challenged a non-communication order imposed under s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code that prevented him from communicating with his minor son while incarcerated.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the sentence and the non-communication order, finding the 12-year sentence was within the appropriate range given the aggravating circumstances and that the trial judge was entitled to impose the communication restriction for safety protection reasons.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with two women, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly, via Twitter between August 1 and November 20, 2012.

The Crown alleged that the accused's tweets caused both complainants to reasonably fear for their safety.

The accused was also charged with violating a peace bond.

The court found that while the accused engaged in repeated communication and the complainants were harassed, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the complainants were harassed or that the complainants' fear for their safety was reasonable in all the circumstances.

All charges were dismissed.

The Crown applied for an order under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code permitting the alleged victim to testify via closed-circuit remote testimony outside the courtroom.

The accused faced charges of attempted murder and criminal harassment.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold of necessity had been met based on evidence of the victim's severe trauma, anxiety, and fear resulting from the violent attack and preceding harassment.

The court considered the victim's age, the nature of the offences, the relationship between the parties, and the victim's emotional state as demonstrated through testimony from the investigating officer and a victim services counselor.

The accused was convicted of six counts: criminal harassment, failure to comply with bail conditions (three counts), and disobey court order (two counts).

The offences arose from the accused's persistent attempts to contact his former partner following their separation, including threats of suicide and confrontation with police.

Despite police intervention, court orders, and incarceration, the accused continued to violate no-contact provisions through collect calls and letters.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 79 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) followed by two years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, a 200-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling.

The defendant brought applications for disclosure of police complaint and misconduct files relating to three Ontario Provincial Police officers who were to testify regarding the admissibility of a statement made by the defendant.

The applications were brought on two bases: first, as a McNeil records application seeking disclosure from the Crown; and second, as a third-party records application seeking production from the OPP.

The Crown advised that McNeil Reports had been reviewed and there was nothing to disclose.

The court found that the Crown had fulfilled its disclosure obligations under McNeil and dismissed the McNeil application.

However, the court found that the defendant had established "likely relevance" for the third-party records application and ordered the OPP to produce all complaint and misconduct files for judicial review.

The accused, a Toronto police officer, was charged with criminal harassment and assault on the basis of a private complaint laid in December 2010.

The accused brought an application to stay the charges pursuant to s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The Crown's office had delayed assigning an outside Crown to the case due to a conflict of interest, and the complainant had refused to provide disclosure until after her own trial was completed.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the scheduled trial date was approximately 35 months, with the court attributing 23 months of that delay to the state.

The court found that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges of assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering death threats, break and enter, criminal harassment, and failure to comply with probation arising from a pattern of domestic violence against his common law partner over approximately two years.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation for the domestic violence charges, plus a four-month conditional sentence for the failure to comply charge, with strict conditions including residence at a treatment facility, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and no contact with the victim.

The court emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence while considering the offender's youth, Aboriginal background, difficult upbringing, early guilty plea, and prospects for rehabilitation through treatment.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment, threatening to cause death, and breaches of probation arising from allegations made by his ex-wife during access visits to their daughter in January and February 2011.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the ex-wife, who alleged the accused damaged her vehicle, followed her, and made threatening statements.

The accused's daughter testified that the alleged threatening phone conversation did not occur as described.

The court granted a directed verdict on the harassment charge due to lack of evidence and acquitted the accused on all remaining counts, finding the complainant's credibility undermined by her emotional state regarding custody issues and her admission that she had not actually witnessed the alleged following.