Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Sauvé, 2007 ONCA 888

DATE: 20071218

DOCKET: C43335

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and MACPHERSON JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

and

GARY SAUVÉ Appellant

Counsel: John H. Hale for the appellant Colleen Hepburn for the respondent

Heard: December 14, 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Hugh Fraser of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 7, 2005 and the sentence imposed on the same date.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The harassment charges arise out of three documents received by one complainant, who was the other complainant’s lawyer in an ongoing family proceedings against the appellant. Both complainants read the documents and went to the police after the third document was received.

[2] The appellant submits that the letters, which the trial judge found contained threats, were not “directed” at the complainants. We disagree. The first document was faxed to the lawyer, the second was hand delivered to the lawyer’s office, and the third was filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, knowing it would be sent on to the lawyer. In cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that he knew and intended that the third document would come to the complainants’ attention. That satisfies the requirement in s. 264(2)(d) that the threats must be “directed” at the complainants.

[3] The appellant acknowledges that if we are satisfied that the threat was directed at the complainant/lawyer, there was ample evidence to support the conviction on the count relating to her. He submits that there was no evidence that the other complainant was harassed or feared for her safety as a result of the letters. While we agree that the evidence was weaker as it applied to this complainant, there was a basis for the trial judge’s findings.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.