ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
OSKEN VURAL
Before Justice T. Lipson
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms. H. Gilani counsel for the Crown
Mr. P. Klumak................................................................ on behalf of the accused Osken Vural
Lipson J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Vural, entered pleas of not guilty to charges of criminal harassment by repeatedly following Sgt. Paul Young, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code, and with causing a disturbance in or near a public place, contrary to s. 175 of the Criminal Code. At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the charge of cause disturbance was dismissed at the request of the Crown.
2The Crown’s case rests primarily on the testimony of Sgt. Young and from his body worn camera video of the incident video evidence involving an encounter instigated by Mr. Vural and the officer on the Toronto Metropolitan University campus on April 23, 2025.
Summary of the Evidence
3Sgt. Paul Young, a 26-year member of the Toronto Police Service, testified that on April 23, 2025, he was on bicycle patrol at the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) campus. The campus had recently experienced a serious vehicular incident that left several people injured, creating heightened anxiety in the community. While patrolling with two other officers, Sgt. Young noticed the accused, Mr. Vural, standing on a concrete block and filming him as he rode past. I will describe the encounter later in this section of the reasons,
4Sgt. Young described two previous interactions with the defendant. First, he recounted the incident at Dundas Square the day before, during which Mr. Vural yelled at him as he was detaining an individual. The accused pressed his middle finger against the window of a police cruiser containing a detained person and Sgt Young all while filming. Second, he referred to the “bottle incident,” which occurred one to two weeks earlier on the TMU campus, when he was investigating an individual. A passerby dropped a bottle of Ensure on the ground near the officer which startled him. Sgt Young kicked the bottle toward the passerby because he was engaged with the other individual. Mr. Vural recorded the moment and later posted a video criticizing the officer for not picking up the bottle and handing it to the passerby. The third interaction was on April 23, when Mr. Vural behaved in what Sgt. Young considered an aggressive and vulgar manner. I happen to agree with his characterization of the defendant’s behaviour.
5Regarding the April 23 incident, the incident is captured on the body worn camera of Sgt. Young and the video footage taken by the accused from his phone.
6Mr. Varul runs after the Sgt Young and his two colleagues pedaling on their bicycles through the campus. The defendant then jumps on a concrete block and begins filming Sgt Young. As the officers pass by, he asks Sgt Young, “Are you kicking any homeless persons’ bottles today?”, “You don’t know how to work your body-worn camera, man” and “You’re a sergeant, you need to learn how to operate your body-worn camera”. Sgt Young stops pedalling and says nothing to Mr. Varul, appearing to look past the accused for a few seconds. Mr. Varul asks “What’s up? what are you waiting for?” and then shoos away the officer. Sgt Young and the other officers begin pedalling away.
7Mr. Varul continues to walk behind and says “I don’t want to see you kicking homeless peoples’ bottles on the ground. You are a sergeant; you need to be role model for everyone. People are watching you, not only the SIU and learn how to operate your body worn camera. You can’t use that to intimidate people or create surveillance footage.”
8Sgt Young stops pedalling again. He faces Mr. Varul and asks, “You following me for a reason?” The defendant responds “ I don’t answer questions.” The officer says “I’m going to caution you” and the accused says “I’m just going to say fuck you”. Mr. Varul then gives the officer the middle finger and says “Bye. Bye. This is my university. Fuck off. You going to caution me for being on my own fucking campus. Fuck off.” Mr. Vural then asks for his name tag. The officer shows him his name tag. Mr. Varul says “P. Young”…Now fuck off. Fuck off. The officer dismounts his bicycle and asks him, “Are you going to continue to follow us or go about your day?” The defendant repeats, “I don’t answer questions”. Sgt Young says “you’re harassing us”. The accused responds, “Then arrest me. I’ve beat that before. You want to try your chance with courts? Go ahead. Arrest me or shut the fuck up. Bitch.” Sgt Young says, “Ok, you’re under arrest.”
9Sgt Young testified that the defendant’s conduct made him feel unsettled and distracted from his duties, particularly because he was on a bicycle without the protection of a police vehicle. He recalled Mr. Varul whistling at him, shooing him away, and making comments such as, “You should be a role model,” “Learn how to use your body‑worn camera,” and “People are watching you—not just SIU.” The defendant also referenced the earlier bottle incident and at one point swore at him and raised his middle finger. Sgt. Young stated that this was not the typical filming he experienced in protests or public interactions; rather, he believed the defendant was deliberately trying to provoke him to record a reaction for online content.
10At one point, Sgt. Young told Mr. Varul that he intended to caution him, although he acknowledged in cross‑examination that he did not explain the reason for the caution. Mr. Varul responded with profanity and made several statements that were captured on the body‑worn camera, including, “I’m not harassing them—I’m harassing you,” and comments implying he had defeated similar charges in the past. Sgt. Young interpreted these remarks as evidence that Mr. Varul was intentionally targeting him. When the accused continued to follow and engage him, the officer decided to arrest him for criminal harassment, relying on the cumulative effect of the prior incidents and the conduct that day. It turned out that the comment attributed to Mr. Vural that he was not harassing the other officers, only him was not made and that Sgt Young was mistaken in his recollection.
11Section 264 of the Criminal Code prohibits engaging in certain forms of conduct, without lawful authority, that cause another person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. The prohibited conduct includes repeatedly following the other person from place to place, repeatedly communicating with them directly or indirectly, besetting or watching their home or other location, or engaging in threatening conduct toward them or their family.
12The Crown must establish not only that the accused engaged in one of the enumerated forms of conduct, but also that the complainant experienced fear for their safety and that this fear was reasonable. The offence is therefore composed of both a conduct element and a consequential state of mind on the part of the complainant.
13The criminal harassment charge in this case alleges the “repeatedly following” subsection of s. 264(2)(a). The jurisprudence is clear that “repeatedly” means more than once. The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ohenhen 2005 34564 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. 4072 held that conduct which occurs more than once may constitute repeated conduct, depending on the circumstances, and that while there is no minimum number beyond “more than one,” a single instance of following cannot satisfy s. 264(2)(a).
14Although other branches of s. 264(2) — such as besetting or threatening conduct — do not require repetition and may, in certain circumstances, be made out by a single sufficiently serious incident, the “repeatedly following” pathway invoked here demands at least two separate acts of following from place to place. assessing whether the conduct meets this requirement, the trier of fact considers the alleged acts in their full context, including any prior interactions between the parties. Background interactions may inform the overall relationship or the complainant’s perception of the accused, but they cannot convert a single occurrence of following into “repeated” conduct when the essential act — following — has only occurred once.
15Accordingly, where the evidence discloses only a single episode in which the accused followed the complainant, the actus reus of criminal harassment under s. 264(2)(a) is not established, regardless of any prior verbal conflicts, filming, or provocative behaviour.
Analysis
16The criminal harassment charge is framed on the basis that Mr. Varul “repeatedly followed” Sgt. Young.
17Section264(2)(a) of the Criminal Code requires proof of more than one discrete act of following the complainant from place to place.
18On the evidence before the court, however, only a single instance of following occurred. On April 23, 2025, Mr. Varul ran toward the officer, positioned himself to film, and then walked behind or alongside him while speaking as the officers moved through the campus. Although this interaction was persistent and unwelcome, it constituted one continuous encounter, not multiple acts of following. A single episode—no matter how prolonged, confrontational, or provocative—cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of repetition.
19The Crown relied on prior interactions between the parties to supply the necessary repetition, but those encounters do not involve following from place to place. The earlier incidents consisted of filming, verbal criticism, and confrontational behaviour in public settings where Sgt. Young was already stationary or engaged in police duties; none involved the defendant accompanying or pursuing the officer’s movements. While such background interactions may inform the complainant’s perception of the defendant, they cannot convert a single later act of following into “repeatedly following” as required by the statute. Because the evidence discloses only one act of following, the actus reus of criminal harassment under s. 264(2)(a) is not established.
20Even if the requirement of repeated following was met in this case, the Crown must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sgt. Young feared for his safety and that this fear was reasonable in all the circumstances. Sgt. Young described feeling unsettled, frustrated, and distracted. These reactions are genuine and understandable. However, Sgt. Young explicitly acknowledged that Mr. Varul did not threaten him, that he did not believe the accused would become violent, and that there were no weapons involved. The conduct consisted of filming, verbal criticism, profanity, and gestures.
21The officer also testified that he was concerned about the possibility of encountering the defendant in the future while off duty, particularly if he were downtown with his child. I accept that this reflects a level of unease. However, the concern described was forward‑looking and hypothetical. It was not tied to any conduct by the accused suggesting an intention to seek out the officer, nor to any threat, gesture, or behaviour directed at him after the incident. The evidence spoke to a generalized worry about a chance encounter in a shared public space, rather than fear arising from Mr. Varul’s actions.
22In law, fear must be real, grounded, and caused by the conduct of the accused. Concern about what might occur at some undefined point in the future, based on coincidence of location rather than targeting or pursuit, does not meet that threshold. The officer’s testimony did not demonstrate a present or objectively reasonable fear stemming from Mr. Varul’s behaviour. Accordingly, while the concern expressed by Sgt. Young is understandable at a human level, the element of fear required in law has not been made out.
23I am left with a reasonable doubt that Sgt. Young feared for his safety within the meaning of s. 264, and a further reasonable doubt that any such fear was objectively reasonable in all the circumstances
24For the above reasons, I find that the Crown has not established the offence of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge is therefore dismissed.
Released: April 2, 2026
Justice T. Lipson