Court Information
The Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— And —
Francis Johnstone
Judicial Officer and Counsel
Before: Justice De Filippis
Heard on: August 25 & October 13, 2015
Reasons for Judgment released on: December 9, 2015
Counsel:
- Ms. L. Crawford — counsel for the Crown
- Mr. K. Mitchell-Gill — for the defendant
Judgment
De Filippis, J.:
1The Crown alleges that the defendant criminally harassed Derek Ferguson, causing him to reasonably fear for the safety of his wife and daughter. The context for this allegation is a dispute among neighbours. I heard from the complainant, his wife, a peace officer, and the defendant. These reasons explain why I find the defendant not guilty.
Facts
2The following facts are not in dispute: The parties live in a rural area near Port Perry, Ontario. The complainant lives in a home with three acres of property. The defendant lives in a home about 300 meters down the road. His home is surrounded by a corn field and is part of a chicken farming business. The defendant is an employee in that business. He moved to this area in 2010 and the complainant did so the following year. For about 18 months the parties enjoyed a cordial relationship. Afterwards, the defendant ignored the complainant. This persisted notwithstanding attempts by the latter to engage the former in conversation.
3On the Sunday of the Thanksgiving weekend in 2013, the complainant entertained family and friends at his home. As the guests were leaving, two strange dogs, a pit bull and rottweiler, ran onto the property. The complainant testified that "everyone panicked". He and one of the guests pursued the dogs through the empty corn field on two "four wheelers". Eventually, they found the woman who owned the animals and had been out walking with them. She took the dogs away and the complainant returned home with his guest. Soon after, the defendant arrived in front of the house in a pick up truck. He shouted "stop disrespecting the land" and then drove the truck onto the front yard, "did a donut spin and sped away".
4According to the complainant, the defendant's actions frightened his two children, aged five and eight years old, and caused temporary damage to the lawn. While his wife went inside to call the police, the complainant drove to the defendant's property to explain why that he had been on the field in pursuit of two dogs. On arrival, he saw his brother struggling with the defendant. The complainant intervened and the parties went to their respective homes.
5The complainant testified that the next day, while he sat on his front porch with his daughter, the defendant drove by, gave him "the finger", and told him to "fuck off". The complainant called the police to report this. He testified that in the following months the defendant would "give [him] the finger every once and a while". He added that during this period the defendant would regularly position his truck so that its high beam lights would shine towards his bedroom window. This was done in the evening while the defendant worked in the barns with the chickens. He said this was bothersome and heightened his daughter's anxiety.
6Things did not improve in the following year. The complainant described two incidents in the summer of 2014: In July, the defendant "had a temper tantrum" because the complainant's brother drove a four wheeler in a ditch near the defendant's home. The defendant screamed, "get off my land". According to the complainant, the ditch is not part of the defendant's property. In August, as the complainant backed his truck out of the driveway, the defendant drove past, gave him "the finger" and loudly swore at him. The complainant's daughter, who was in the truck, witnessed this and "lost it". The complainant explained that "she has a touch of anxiety and goes into panic attacks". He went to the defendant's driveway and said, "what's your problem"? The defendant replied "fuck you". When the complainant added, "nice language in front of my daughter", the defendant said he did not know she was present.
7Several weeks later, on Labour Day, the complainant's nephew came running into the house and shouted "Frank's outside". The complainant went to the front yard and saw his brother and the defendant arguing about whether the former had walked on the latter's property. The defendant then went into his barn, emerged with a camera, and began to film the people on the complainant's front lawn. His daughter asked, "Daddy why is he taking pictures of us".
8The complainant testified that the "videotaping or picture taking…was the last straw" and he insisted that the police lay charges against the defendant. He explained that he is does not fear the defendant but "I'm afraid for my family". As a result, he installed a video surveillance system on his property.
9Kara Ferguson, the complainant's wife, also witnessed the events on Thanksgiving 2013. She testified the defendant arrived in his truck, honked the horn, drove onto the front lawn and "did at least two circles", while shouting something about "destroying farm property". She went inside to call the police and, through the window, saw defendant strike her brother in law as they struggled. The latter fact is not mentioned in her previous statement to the police. Soon after, when the defendant's truck approached again, she took her daughter inside and saw him "give the finger" to her husband. She testified that her daughter, is "very afraid" of the defendant.
10Ms Ferguson testified that beginning in February 2014, the defendant began "shining his high beams into the house at night…for 30 to 60 minutes at a time" and added, "there was no need for him to park there, he hadn't done so in the past". She stated that her daughter "has always had small anxiety but this brought it out more". It caused her to cry and lose sleep. She asked that the family to move and did not want to go to school. Consequently, a psychologist was engaged to provide counselling to the young girl.
11Ms Ferguson conceded that the defendant has never said anything to her or the children and has done nothing to directly threaten them. However, she added that his conduct made her worry about what he might do to her husband and daughter and caused her to fear being alone in the house.
12PC Redmond responded to the call to police placed by Ms Ferguson on Thanksgiving 2013. He testified that the complainant did not want to press charges. Accordingly, he advised the defendant that he had committed mischief and cautioned him to stay away from the Ferguson family. The defendant replied that he was upset because the complainant had damaged the corn field. PC Redmond did not see any such damage and told the defendant that in future he should take his concerns about the land to his employer, the owner of the property. PC Redmond cautioned the defendant "about criminal harassment" in February 2014 after the complainant told him abut being given the finger and the shining of truck lights into the home. The defendant admitted giving the finger to the complainant because the latter "continued to disrespect the land". Later that summer, the complainant reported that the defendant had shouted obscenities in the presence of his daughter and was taking pictures of his family. As a result, the officer arrested the defendant for the present charge.
13The defendant is 36 years old. He lives in a home on the poultry farm with his wife and four year old son. He testified that he stopped talking to the complainant because his use of "ATMs and snow machines…was disrespectful to the farm and damaged the land". He conceded that he ignored the complainant when the latter tried to discuss the issue with him.
14The defendant admitted his misconduct on Thanksgiving 2013. He was upset that the complainant drove a machine over the field and decided to "return the favour….I over-reacted and did a little burnout on their lawn". He testified he regrets his actions and denied striking the complainant's brother in the confrontation that followed; indeed, he asserted that this man tried to grab him.
15The defendant believes the August 2014 incident was a provocation by the complainant; "he [the complainant] pulled out in front deliberately…he could have waited for me to drive by…it irritated me". The defendant acknowledged he raised his fist at the complainant and that he repeatedly cursed at him when the latter asked "what's your problem". The defendant said he was "shocked" to learn the complainant's daughter was present in the truck at this time.
16The defendant said he took photographs of the complainant's brother as he felt threatened by the ongoing difficulties with him and wanted a means of identifying him should the police become involved. He said he also videotaped the complainant as he cut the grass to prove he was trespassing on the farm property. The defendant denied the complainant's wife or children were the intended subjects of these activities.
17The defendant concedes he often "gave the finger" to the complainant but denied intentionally shining the highbeams from his truck onto his house at night. He testified that he has never met the complainant's wife and has not had any direct contact with his children. He denied threatening these people. When cross-examined about why he was so concerned about the land when there were no crops growing, the defendant responded "but it's still farmland – it was resting". He was also challenged about his continued use of foul language and gestures after being cautioned by police to bring his concerns about the land to his employer. The defendants' answers, sometimes rambling in nature, were not convincing.
Legal Framework
18The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if the defendant is to be found guilty. This means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal: (i) where the testimony is believed, (ii) where the testimony is not believed, but leaves the trier of fact in reasonable doubt, (iii) where testimony is not believed and does not leave a reasonable doubt, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty: R. v. W.D., 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397. The application of this principle does not mean the defendant's evidence is to be viewed in isolation, divorced from the context or other evidence in the case: F v. R.D., [2004] O.J. 2086 (O.C.A). Moreover, in the appropriate case, the trier of fact may reject a defendant's evidence and find guilt on the basis of a reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of a complainant's evidence: R. v. T.S., 2012 ONCA 289.
19Section 264 of the Criminal Code provides that:
(1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
- (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
- (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
- (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
- (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
20The prohibited conduct relied upon by the Crown is that set out in subsection 2(d). The Defence argues that the Crown has not proven this and that the complainant was not fearful. With respect to the former, it is submitted that the defendant has admitted one act of mischief but explained or denied the other allegations. With respect to the latter, it is submitted that even if it is established, in addition to his "burnout on the lawn", that the defendant used foul language and gestures, shined his vehicle lights in the bedroom, and took pictures and videos, that this could not reasonably cause the defendant to fear for the safety of his wife and daughter. The Crown asserts that all the acts have been proven and that taken together they constitute harassment that reasonably caused the complainant to fear for the safety of his wife and child.
21The elements of the offence of criminal harassment was discussed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Kosikar, 1999 CanLII 3775 (ON CA), 138 C.C.C. (3d) 217 and R. v. Kordrostami, 2000 CanLII 5670 (ON CA), 143 C.C.C. (3D) 488. Applying those principles to this case, the offence is proven if it is established that: (1) The defendant engaged in threatening conduct directed at the complainant's wife or daughter (2) The complainant was harassed; (3) The defendant knew the complainant felt harassed (or, was reckless or willfully blind as to whether the complainants were harassed); (4) The defendant's conduct caused the complainant to fear for the safety of his wife or daughter; (5) The complainant's fear was reasonable.
22In addition, I note the following legal principles: Conduct that causes a person to be "vexed, disquieted, or annoyed" does not amount to harassment. A person is harassed if they are "tormented, troubled, worried continually, or chronically plagued, bedeviled, and badgered". These words are not cumulative. If anyone of them properly describes the effect of one's conduct on another, that other person is harassed (Kordrostami, paragraphs 10 and 11). The phrase "to fear for their safety" is not limited to a fear of physical safety. Parliament also intended to address psychological safety. This means a fear of mental, emotional, or psychological trauma. R. v. Ryback, 1996 CanLII 1833 (BC CA), 105 C.C.C. (3D) 240.
Analysis and Findings
23I accept the testimony of the complainant and his wife. They impressed me as witnesses who understood their duty to be truthful and accurate. Their evidence was not seriously challenged or undermined. I have confidence in their account of the incidents in question. The defendant readily acknowledged his uncivil behaviour and admitted his mischief on Thanksgiving 2013. Notwithstanding this candour, in general, I found his testimony less persuasive than that of the complainant and his wife. In any event, I do not reject it entirely. The defendant's exaggerated concern for the integrity of agricultural land manifested itself in instances of rude words and gestures over many months towards the complainant. Against this background, it is likely that he also deliberately shined lights at the complainant's home to further provoke him. This conduct constitutes harassment. However, I believe the defendant's stated reasons for taking the photographs and video and find he did not intend to harass by so doing. Moreover, I accept that his actions were directed toward the complainant and that he did not intend to threaten the complainant's wife and daughter.
24It is understandable that the complainant (and his family) would be upset and annoyed by the defendant's conduct but it cannot be reasonably said that this would cause him to be tormented or chronically plagued, to use some of the examples offered by the Court of Appeal. The offence of criminal harassment is not an answer to the incivility displayed by the defendant in this case.
Disposition
25The defendant ignored attempts by the complainant to reconcile their differences and remained an unpleasant neighbour. I cannot convict him for that. However, I have a common law power that can be an effective tool in situations such as this. I can compel the defendant to enter into a recognizance to abide by terms, including keeping the peace and being of good behaviour (i.e. a "peace bond"). I am inclined to exercise this common law power to prevent the defendant from further disturbing the complainant and his family.
26The charge is dismissed. I will invite submissions from counsel about the propriety, length and conditions of a peace bond.
Released: December 9, 2015
Signed: "Justice J. De Filippis"