Criminal harassment

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance, as well as his sentence.

The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the 20-month net delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of case complexity, given the 10 complainants, multiple charges, and extensive pre-trial applications.

The Court also dismissed the conviction appeals based on alleged misapprehension of evidence and unreasonable verdict.

The sentence appeal, challenging a four-month term for breach of recognizance and a 20-year SOIRA registration order, was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the length of his conditional sentence order (CSO) after it was partially collapsed due to a breach involving contact with his former intimate partner.

He sought to reduce the CSO length so that time spent detained could be credited as pre-sentence custody on a new, related criminal harassment charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the original CSO length appropriate and holding that any credit for pre-sentence custody must be determined by the sentencing judge on the new charge.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, sexual interference, and sexual assault involving three complainants.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence from three educators who claimed the appellant resembled a police composite sketch, that the jury charge on eyewitness identification was inadequate, and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jury charge failed to highlight specific weaknesses and exculpatory features in the eyewitness evidence.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the verdicts were unreasonable because the identification evidence was largely generic and contradicted by distinctive features the appellant did not possess.

Acquittals were substituted for all convictions.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a tumultuous relationship.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a campaign of criminal harassment against the applicant, resulting in a criminal conviction, probation, and supervised access.

At trial, the court considered whether to loosen access restrictions.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered a phased expansion of the respondent's access, subject to strict conditions including anger management and drug/alcohol assessments.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $776.80 per month and maintained his existing arrears.

The accused was charged with three counts of criminal harassment and one count of failing to comply with a probation order after repeatedly asking a 13-year-old girl to come to his apartment and swearing at her.

The court found that the accused did not repeatedly follow the complainant or engage in threatening conduct.

However, the court found the accused guilty of criminal harassment by repeatedly communicating with the complainant, as his conduct caused her to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was also found guilty of breaching his probation order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The accused, charged with criminal harassment, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The charge arose from an incident where the accused allegedly followed and watched a 13-year-old girl on her way to school, having previously followed her and a friend weeks earlier.

The court amended the indictment to conform to the evidence regarding the date of the offence.

The court dismissed the motion for a directed verdict, finding that there was sufficient evidence of 'watching' under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The accused, charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and criminal harassment involving six different complainants, applied to sever counts 7 and 8 from the indictment.

The Crown applied to admit similar act evidence across the counts to assist in identifying the perpetrator.

The court held that the similar act evidence application was premature and should be decided during the trial.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding a strong factual nexus between the incidents and concluding that the benefits of a single trial outweighed the risk of prejudice to the accused.

The applicant, who was self-represented, brought an application under section 520 of the Criminal Code to vary his bail conditions.

He sought to vary conditions relating to a no-contact order, an internet ban, and a prohibition on contacting the police.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the no-contact order because charges relating to one complainant had been quashed, and the Crown consented to removing the names of other potential witnesses.

The court also varied the internet ban to allow the applicant to communicate with individuals assisting in his defence.

The request to vary the prohibition on contacting the police was dismissed as no new evidence was provided.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution against the defendant, a home builder who had constructed the plaintiff's house.

Following a dispute over warranty repairs, the defendant initiated two private criminal charges against the plaintiff for mischief and criminal harassment, alleging the plaintiff made numerous baseless by-law complaints.

The criminal charges were ultimately stayed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the malicious prosecution action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the criminal proceedings were terminated in his favour or that the defendant lacked reasonable and probable cause to initiate them.

The defendant's counterclaim was also dismissed due to his failure to attend the trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening death, criminal harassment, and mischief, as well as his suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant, after receiving a noise complaint, banged on neighbors' doors and threatened to kill them.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, specifically an iPhone recording that did not capture threats.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error, concluding the trial judge's findings were reasonable.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, though a conditional stay was entered for the criminal harassment charges under the Kienapple principle.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with a modification to the weapons prohibition from s. 109 to s. 110 of the Criminal Code.

The offender was found guilty of criminal harassment following the end of an extra-marital affair with the victim.

He sent unwanted text messages, including a threat to go 'Rambo' on her, and left a disturbing voicemail.

The Crown sought 30-45 days in custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but noted the offender's lack of a prior record and positive presentence report.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, declining a conditional discharge due to the threatening nature of the communications.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct involving two former spouses in a first-degree murder trial.

The proposed evidence included allegations of jealousy, controlling behaviour, criminal harassment, and assault.

The Crown argued this similar fact evidence would assist in proving motive, identity, and the elements of first-degree murder.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Handy and concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence, particularly moral and reasoning prejudice, outweighed its probative value.

The Crown's application to admit the evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.

He argued the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to call reply evidence on a collateral issue regarding how he obtained an invitation to the complainant's dinner party.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the reply evidence was admissible because the issue took on new significance during the defence case.

The court also found the sentence, which included a suspended sentence and three years' probation, was not clearly unreasonable given the persistent nature of the harassment.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The accused faced 22 charges involving seven different female complainants, including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, theft, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The accused targeted intoxicated women in the Ottawa market area, offering them rides in his vehicle, taking them to his apartment, and stealing their cell phones.

He subsequently used the stolen phones to harass the victims and others.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as unreliable and contradictory.

The accused was found guilty on 20 of the 22 counts, with the court finding that he unlawfully confined and sexually assaulted multiple victims, stole their property, and engaged in persistent criminal harassment.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and breach of probation after leaving a series of unwanted, obsessive voicemails for the complainant at her workplace in 2012.

The accused and the complainant had no contact for 12 years following a previous criminal harassment charge and peace bond in 2001.

The court found that the accused's conduct constituted repeated communication that caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The court also found the accused possessed the requisite mens rea of recklessness, as he subjectively appreciated the risk his conduct posed but persisted anyway.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused was tried on 11 criminal charges, including assault, attempting to choke, uttering threats, and criminal harassment, relating to his former partner.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies with other witnesses, prior untruths to authorities, internal inconsistencies, and contradictions with her own journal.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, threatening death, intimidation, and criminal harassment against his wife and five children over a 24-year marriage.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting his wife on two occasions and his eldest son on one occasion, rejecting the defence of reasonable correction under section 43 of the Criminal Code for the use of a toy bat.

The accused was also found guilty of criminally harassing his wife and two of his younger sons due to his controlling behaviour, emotional abuse, and use of a leather belt for discipline.

The accused was acquitted of the remaining charges, including threatening death and intimidation, due to reasonable doubt regarding his intent and lawful authority.

The Crown applied for certiorari to overturn a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on first degree murder and commit her to stand trial for second degree murder.

The respondent had struck and killed the victim with her vehicle following a prolonged period of criminal harassment.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing competing inferences regarding whether the murder occurred while the respondent was committing criminal harassment.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge properly conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence and made no jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence of criminal harassment at the exact time of the murder.

The accused, an employer, was found guilty by a jury of five offences involving extortion and criminal harassment against three former employees.

The accused falsely accused the employees of theft and threatened them with police action, deportation, and harm to their families in Iran if they did not pay him large sums of money.

The court rejected the defence's argument to stay the criminal harassment charges under the Kienapple principle, finding the offences occurred on different dates.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the accused's exploitation of the victims' vulnerabilities and abuse of authority, the court sentenced the accused to three years of incarceration concurrent for each offence, along with restitution orders totaling over $50,000.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance following the end of his relationship with the complainant.

After being warned by police to have no contact with the complainant, the appellant left a letter at her door.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding the letter's contents disturbing and sufficient to cause the complainant to fear for her safety.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found the verdict unreasonable, holding that the trial judge failed to properly analyze the mens rea requirement and that a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude the appellant knew or was reckless as to whether the letter would harass the complainant.

The convictions were set aside and acquittals entered.