Stalking

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 accused, Donald Wayne Riggs, pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code, involving surreptitious visual recordings of his neighbour, C.A., over several years, including intimate and sexual acts.

The recordings, some made after his initial arrest, caused significant emotional, financial, and practical distress to the victim and her family, forcing them to move.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the duration and intrusive nature of the invasion of privacy, the filming of sexual activity, and the accused's continued behaviour after being caught.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea (though limited by timing) and mental health issues.

The court rejected the accused's claims of non-sexual purpose and insincere remorse, noting his victim-blaming.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the high moral blameworthiness and lack of insight.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer in 2019.

In 2022, she commenced a separate tort action against the employer and a co-worker, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and the novel torts of harassment and stalking, based on the same factual footprint.

The defendants moved to strike the novel torts and to stay or dismiss the 2022 action as an abuse of process or duplicative proceeding.

The court declined to strike the novel torts, finding it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

The court also declined to stay the 2022 action, finding no abuse of process, but struck the 2022 statement of claim for pleading irregularities with leave to amend, and ordered the two actions consolidated.

The accused, John Leach, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code of Canada, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and a new plan of care as a material change in circumstances.

The accused, a 44-year-old with no criminal record, faced over 20 charges including domestic offences, human trafficking allegations, and weapons offences.

The court conducted a bail hearing de novo.

While the primary ground for detention was not met, the court found that detention was necessary on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The proposed plan of care was deemed insufficient to mitigate the risk of reoffending, particularly given the serious nature of the firearms charges (possession of non-hunting weapons, including a sawed-off shotgun and pistols, after a police standoff).

The court also considered the impact of COVID-19 but found it did not substantially alter the analysis in this specific case.

The application for release was dismissed.

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 plaintiff, an adult ESL student, brought an action for defamation and malicious prosecution against her former teacher.

She alleged that the teacher defamed her by falsely claiming she was stalking and harassing him, and maliciously prosecuted her by seeking two peace bonds.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's evidence not credible and accepting the defendant's evidence that the plaintiff had engaged in a prolonged pattern of stalking and harassment.

The court held that the defendant's statements were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege, and that he had reasonable and probable cause to seek the peace bonds without malice.

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for criminal harassment, mischief, and breach of a Long-Term Supervision Order.

The respondent had a lengthy history of stalking and harassing former intimate partners.

The court found that the criminal harassment convictions constituted serious personal injury offences, as they caused severe psychological damage to the victim.

The court declared the respondent a Dangerous Offender, imposing a determinate global sentence of 6 years (reduced to 2.5 years after pre-trial custody credit) and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The applicant, Omar McLeod, sought judicial interim release by applying to vacate a prior detention order, claiming a material change in circumstances.

The Crown conceded a material change but argued it did not favor release, opposing bail on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court, applying the criteria for material change from *R. v. St. Cloud*, acknowledged that the proposed 24-hour surety supervision by the applicant's mother constituted a favorable change.

However, the court found that the additional 16 charges laid against the applicant since the initial bail hearing, revealing a pattern of aggressive, predatory, and stalking conduct against multiple complainants, also constituted a material change that significantly increased the risk to public safety and undermined confidence in the administration of justice.

The court dismissed the application, maintaining the detention order on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

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 charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(3) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant between January 19 and February 1, 2012, causing her to reasonably fear for her personal safety.

The trial involved a credibility contest between the complainant and the self-represented accused.

The Crown proved that the accused engaged in repeated communications via text messages, Facebook messages, phone calls, and in-person contact at the complainant's workplace and residence.

The court found the accused's evidence unreliable and riddled with inconsistencies, while accepting the complainant's forthright and credible testimony.

The accused was found guilty of criminal harassment.

A police officer with the Belleville City Police was charged with criminal harassment and breach of trust by a public officer.

The officer engaged in repeated unauthorized surveillance of his former girlfriend's residence over a period of approximately two years, including multiple drive-bys and attendance at the end of her driveway.

The officer also conducted numerous unauthorized searches of Ministry of Transportation and Canadian Police Information Computer databases to obtain the former girlfriend's and her spouse's personal information and addresses.

The court found the officer guilty on both counts, determining that his conduct constituted oppressive watching of the dwelling house and a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of a police officer in a position of public trust.