Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 12-01546 Central East Region-Newmarket

Date: 2013-10-30

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— And —

Ali Amiri

Before: Justice Peter C. West

Heard on: March 15, 2013; May 6, 10, 2013; and July 9, 22, 2013

Oral Submissions heard on: July 25, 2013

Judgment Delivered Orally: October 30, 2013

Counsel:

Ms. M. Montemurro — for the Crown

The defendant, Mr. A. Amiri — on his own behalf

WEST J.:

Introduction

[1] On February 1, 2012, Mr. Amiri was charged that between January 19, 2012 and February 1, 2012, at the City of Vaughan in the Regional Municipality of York did, without lawful authority and knowing that another person, namely Nargis Rasuli, was harassed, or recklessly as to whether that person was harassed, did engage in repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, that person and caused Nargis Rasuli to reasonably fear for her personal safety, and did thereby commit the offence of criminal harassment contrary to section 264(3) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Amiri was released from the police station with a first appearance on March 1, 2012 in Courtroom 205 in the Newmarket Courthouse.

[2] Mr. Amiri chose to represent himself on this charge and consequently, pursuant to section 486.3(4) of the Criminal Code, the Crown brought an application for counsel to be appointed to cross-examine the complainant. This application was heard before me as the trial judge on March 15, 2013. Mr. Amiri opposed the appointment of counsel and, after hearing evidence and submissions of the Crown and Mr. Amiri, I ordered that Elliott Starrer be appointed. The trial was scheduled for one day on May 10, 2013. Mr. Amiri advised me he intended to bring an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order not to lose the day set for the trial, the section 11(b) application was set for May 6, 2013. A full day of argument was made by Mr. Amiri and the Crown and I reserved my ruling until May 10, 2013, the trial date.

[3] On May 10, 2013, I dismissed Mr. Amiri's section 11(b) application in oral judgement. Mr. Amiri then brought an impromptu application for adjournment as no notice of the application had been filed. Mr. Amiri advised me, for the first time, that he had been involved in two accidents, which caused him pain when he sat or had to stand for extended periods of time. Mr. Amiri provided his own affidavit that he had prepared, which attested to his medical problems, however, there were no medical reports included. I indicated to Mr. Amiri that I had seen no evidence of him having any difficulties sitting or standing on March 15th or May 6th during the two applications. After hearing Mr. Amiri's submissions, I dismissed his application to adjourn the trial.

[4] Mr. Amiri then advised me the trial would have to proceed without him being present, as he intended to leave the courthouse because he could not face the complainant. He advised me he was not prepared psychologically to proceed with a trial. I told Mr. Amiri that I had not observed anything when he appeared before me on March 15th or May 6, 2013 that would have indicated he had any psychological issues that prevented him from being able to make full answer and defence. I further advised Mr. Amiri the trial could not proceed in his absence, he was present and if he left the courtroom and was not present when the Crown called her first witness, I would be forced to issue a bench warrant for his arrest.

[5] Mr. Amiri then indicated he would remain but it was only because I was forcing him to stay. Mr. Amiri was then arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty and the Crown called her first witness who is Nargis Rasuli. After providing her evidence in-chief, Ms. Rasuli was cross-examined by Mr. Starrer. Mr. Amiri had not met with Mr. Starrer as of May 6, 2013 when he applied for a stay of proceedings due to undue delay, however, Mr. Starrer advised me that he and Mr. Amiri had met, as I had recommended to Mr. Amiri, between May 6 and the trial date, May 10. Prior to completing his cross-examination, Mr. Starrer requested a recess to speak with Mr. Amiri and obtain his final instruction concerning the cross-examination of Ms. Rasuli. Mr. Starrer continued his cross-examination of Ms. Rasuli after the recess.

[6] The Crown advised the court that she was not calling any further evidence because of the way the proceeding had gone up to this point and she closed her case. Mr. Amiri told me he intended to testify. He asked about the statement he had given to the police and Ms. Montemurro advised she did not intend to prove its voluntariness and did not intend to introduce it and would not be using it to cross-examine Mr. Amiri.

[7] Mr. Amiri advised he would be introducing text messages between himself and the complainant from his old cell phone. The Crown expressed concern that none of these text messages had been put to Ms. Rasuli in cross-examination. Mr. Amiri said it was an old phone that could not keep its charge and he had not brought the charger to the courthouse. He advised he had been able to show Mr. Starrer the text messages before the trial commenced but had not provided him with printed copies. There was discussion about whether Mr. Amiri would provide copies of the text messages to the Crown in advance of the continuation date of July 9, 2013, although I told Mr. Amiri he was under no obligation to provide them prior to testifying. I indicated to Mr. Amiri that his failure to give the Crown advance notice of these text might very well result in the Crown seeking an adjournment.

[8] On July 9, 2013, Mr. Amiri requested an adjournment of his trial because he was unable to print the pictures he took of the text messages on his old phone as a result of the previous day's summer storm, which flooded his basement and resulted in a power outage. I asked why Mr. Amiri had not photographed and printed the text messages shortly after May 10. He told me that he usually leaves his preparation till the night before; this was how he did his work as a paralegal.

[9] Ultimately, Mr. Amiri suggested he could go to a Tim Hortons, where there is free Wi-Fi, and email the photographs of the texts to the Crown, Ms. Montemurro. I then advised Mr. Amiri that if he intended to testify he could give his evidence in-chief, as he had the old phone with him and he could read the texts into the record. When we broke for lunch he could attend the Tim Hortons and email the text messages to Ms. Montemurro, she would print them and they would be filed as an exhibit.

[10] Mr. Amiri gave his evidence in-chief and after the morning recess, Ms. Montemurro commenced her cross-examination. Mr. Amiri emailed the text messages to the Crown over lunch and they were filed as Exhibit 2. During Ms. Montemurro's cross-examination in the afternoon it became clear that Mr. Amiri had not provided to the Crown all of the text messages between the complainant and himself that were on his cell phone. In his evidence Mr. Amiri agreed there were texts before and after the text messages that were filed as Exhibit 2.

[11] The Crown advised that she wanted an opportunity to see these texts and Mr. Amiri responded that he did not have the charger for his old cell phone with him in court, it was in his brother's car, which was in the parking lot of the courthouse. He further stated that he could call his brother and ask him to bring the charger into the courthouse. When Mr. Amiri returned to the courtroom he advised that his brother had left the parking lot and was approximately 15 minutes away. It was agreed we would adjourn the proceedings to July 22, 2013 and Mr. Amiri would meet with the Crown at her office that same day so she could view and print the additional text messages that were not included in Exhibit 2. Court adjourned at approximately 4 p.m.

[12] On July 22, 2013, I was advised that Mr. Amiri had not attended the Crown's office on July 9, 2013 despite Ms. Montemurro waiting until 5:25 p.m. in her office. Mr. Amiri advised that his brother did not arrive at the courthouse until 4:35 p.m. and he believed the courthouse was closed at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Amiri did not try to enter the courthouse, nor did he email or phone Ms. Montemurro. Ms. Montemurro reviewed parts of Mr. Amiri's text messages with the complainant on July 22, 2013 before court commenced and made notes and was prepared to continue her cross-examination. It was agreed by Mr. Amiri that the Crown could review the texts on his cell phone between Ms. Rasuli and himself that he had not entered into evidence during the lunch recess.

[13] Mr. Amiri then renewed his s. 11(b) application because of the further two months and 12 days of delay between May 10th and July 22, 2013. This application was adjourned until the completion of the evidence. Cross-examination of Mr. Amiri concluded around 4 p.m. Following the afternoon recess Mr. Amiri made submissions respecting his renewed s. 11(b) application. After hearing submissions I dismissed this application. The trial was adjourned to July 25, 2013 for submissions as to whether the Crown had proven the charge of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Amiri also advised he was bringing a further application for a mistrial as he alleged Mr. Starrer had not followed his instructions in cross-examining the complainant.

[14] On July 25, 2013, Mr. Amiri renewed his motion for a mistrial based on the ineffectual representation by Mr. Starrer. It was my view that this was perhaps a ground of appeal, however, Mr. Starrer clearly asked questions based on information provided by Mr. Amiri and Mr. Amiri had never raised any issues about Mr. Starrer's cross-examination. Both the Crown and Mr. Amiri then made submissions as to whether the Crown had proven the charge of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt. At the conclusion of the submissions I reserved judgment to provide reasons.

[15] This is a "she said/he said" domestic criminal harassment case. Credibility is the main issue because Ms. Rasuli and Mr. Amiri have given diametrically opposed evidence about the essential facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to the charge against Mr. Amiri. The one added feature in this case is the existence of Facebook messages, which Ms. Rasuli testified she copied, put into a document (Exhibit 1) and text messages from Mr. Amiri's cell phone (Exhibit 2 and additional text messages read into evidence by the Crown in cross-examination of Mr. Amiri).

Factual Background

Evidence of Nargis Rasuli

[16] Ms. Rasuli was 26 years old and attending school for linguistics when she testified. She first met Mr. Amiri at a poker game that some of her friends had organized at a hotel by the airport. Mr. Amiri had been invited and she met and spoke to him. A number of people stayed at the hotel and she ended up lying on the pull-out bed with Mr. Amiri, talking and sleeping for a short time. The next morning he drove her home and they exchanged telephone numbers. Mr. Amiri asked her out but she was busy and declined.

[17] He called her the next day and asked her out again but she declined as she did not believe they were compatible. Mr. Amiri continued to call and she called him and they talked on the phone or they texted each other. When Mr. Amiri asked her out again, this time she agreed as a result of getting to know each other. Ms. Rasuli testified she next saw Mr. Amiri on December 19, 2011. They went to a movie and then to a Tim Hortons. They talked in the car in the parking lot and kissed for the first time.

[18] After this they texted each other almost every day. She had taken ill with the flu and Mr. Amiri took her to see the doctor. After that he brought her food and checked up on her. She was sick for a week. On December 24th, there was another poker game she went to with Mr. Amiri. On December 26th, they went shopping at Yorkdale Mall and Mr. Amiri bought her a bag from Aldo. They had dinner at Milestones. After dinner they booked a room in a hotel. Mr. Amiri had brought alcohol to the hotel and they both drank and were intimate with each other. He took her home early the next morning around 5 a.m. as she had a family engagement that day.

[19] They went to Niagara Falls for New Year's Eve, went to a restaurant for dinner, walked, took in the sights and stayed at a hotel where they were intimate again. The relationship was fine at this point. After this trip they continued to talk by phone and through text messages and on January 7, 2012 they decided to become exclusive as boyfriend and girlfriend.

[20] It was Ms. Rasuli's evidence that shortly after this decision she noticed Mr. Amiri always wanted to look at her cell phone to know who she was speaking to. She began to realize he did not have a lot of trust in her. She refused to let him see her phone on one occasion and he became even more suspicious.

[21] On January 14th, she was invited to spend a day with two girlfriends to celebrate their birthdays. They wanted her to go out with them that evening and she called Mr. Amiri to cancel seeing him. He became upset and hung up and then called her back. He told her to go out and have fun but if they were going to go to a club-type environment he wanted her to call him so he could pick her up. Ms. Rasuli testified her friends wanted to go to a shisha place, Zenobia, which turned out to be a club in Mississauga. She told Mr. Amiri they were going to a club in a text message and he was upset.

[22] Mr. Amiri came to the club and she went outside and got in his car. He was upset, accusing her of changing her clothes from a skirt to jeans, which she told him she had not changed. He did not believe her. He became very upset and Ms. Rasuli described that when he got upset his body would become really tight, he would clench his fists and she could see it in his face as well as the tone of his voice. Ms. Rasuli began to question whether she should be involved with Mr. Amiri. They talked in the car for a while and then he drove her home.

[23] Afterwards things calmed down between them. On January 16, 2012, she told him she was going to Yorkdale with a friend for dinner. Mr. Amiri told her to find a clock in the mall and take a picture of herself with her friend to prove she was where she said she was. She did not agree to do this. He told he was going to come to Yorkdale to confirm she was there and who she was with. He came and met her at the mall and told her he was happy she was where she told him she was going to be. She had come out of the mall and was sitting in his car.

[24] Ms. Rasuli testified that she realized then that her relationship with Mr. Amiri was not going to work out. She told him she could not be with someone like him; it was too much for her to handle. She tried to break up with him and he became very upset. He told her that people were right about her and named some people that had gone to high school with her and told her they said she was a "slut". When she asked him how he knew these people he told her, "Don't worry about it."

[25] Ms. Rasuli got out of Mr. Amiri's car and began walking towards the mall. Mr. Amiri drove his car to a parking spot next to where she was walking and got out. He told her he wanted his bag back. She saw his body was clenched up and he looked as if he was going to cry. She testified she became concerned about what he might do to her or to himself so she told him she would give him another chance, that they would work it out. He accepted this and she went back into Yorkdale. Before they separated he told her that he would pick her up and drive her home after she was done.

[26] When he picked her up she offered to give him back the bag he bought her but he told her to keep it as he had given it to her as a gift. On the drive to her home they talked about all of the things that had happened. She decided to give things some more time and see if he changed. Ms. Rasuli described that things did not change as he continued to accuse her of seeing other men and he often called her names like "bitch", "whore" or "slut".

[27] On January 19, 2012, Ms. Rasuli officially broke up with Mr. Amiri. She texted him and told him she cannot be with him and it was over. Initially he did not respond and then he texted her and asked if they could meet the next day face to face to talk about things. She agreed to meet with him. She testified she felt she owed him this, to meet face to face, and get everything out in the open. She was working that next night at Tim Horton's. He picked her up after work and drove to a small industrial park, which was close to Ms. Rasuli's home, where they had gone previously after the disagreement over Ms. Rasuli going to the club in Mississauga.

[28] At the industrial park they talked about everything that had gone on in their relationship. Mr. Amiri wanted to go out one last time clubbing but Ms. Rasuli refused. Mr. Amiri then started to talk about his ex-girlfriend who he dated when he lived in England. Ms. Rasuli kept asking him to take her home, which he finally did. They talked in the car for at least two hours.

[29] Ms. Rasuli testified that while they were in Mr. Amiri's car she took his phone and erased her cell phone number from his contacts. The next time she heard from Mr. Amiri was on January 22, 2012. He messaged her from his Ali Amiri Facebook account. It was her evidence that they had never communicated through Facebook previously. The message requested her to return the gift he had given her. She told him she was going to be at work that afternoon and he could pick it up then. He never came. She sent him another message asking if he was coming to pick up the bag but there was no response.

[30] Ms. Rasuli had arranged for a friend to pick her up after work, however, prior to leaving she became aware that Mr. Amiri was outside the Tim Hortons. She arranged for a friend, Nasir, to pick her up at the back door because she did not want Mr. Amiri to see her get into Nasir's car. She believed that if Mr. Amiri saw her get into Nasir's car, he would follow them to her house. When she left through the back door she saw Mr. Amiri see her get into Nasir's car.

[31] When Nasir got to her house to drop her off Mr. Amiri was waiting on the street in his car. Ms. Rasuli testified this made her feel very uncomfortable when she saw Mr. Amiri sitting in his car on her street. She got out of Nasir's car and went inside her house. As she passed Mr. Amiri's car she asked him why he was there and he told her he just wanted to talk to her. She noticed that he had a pillow and blanket in the back seat of his car. She saw Mr. Amiri get out and go and speak to Nasir.

[32] Ms. Rasuli testified that all this made her feel scared as it was late at night. She saw Nasir leave and then Mr. Amiri started messaging her, "Just come outside. I want to talk to you." She testified she was scared because her father would be coming home and she was concerned that Mr. Amiri would speak to him. She was unsure of how Mr. Amiri had obtained her cell phone number but he was messaging her again. She went outside and started talking with Mr. Amiri outside his car. She was concerned about her father coming home so she asked Mr. Amiri to drive somewhere away from her house so they could talk, which Mr. Amiri did.

[33] He told her he was going through a difficult time as he had a trial coming up with the Law Society. He talked about them being together and she told him this was not possible. He asked can't they just be friends and she told him yes because she felt bad for him as he was going through a difficult time. She believed Mr. Amiri accepted this and was fine with them just being friends, however, the next day he picked her up again from work and the conversation about them going out started up again. She told him that was not possible and told him she was going to change her cell phone number. She changed the number on January 25, 2012. She also blocked his personal Facebook, Ali Amiri account. After this she did not hear from him for several days.

[34] On January 30, 2012, she noticed she had received a number of messages on Facebook from a name she did not recognize, BuddyFriend. She realized that the person sending these messages was Mr. Amiri from the content and the language being used. This person told her he was going through a very difficult time and just needed someone to talk to. She felt sorry for him and agreed to talk to him on Facebook but she would not give him her phone number. This was not enough for him and he kept pushing for a face to face meeting to talk. Ms. Rasuli testified she relented and agreed to meet with him later that day on January 30.

[35] Mr. Amiri wanted to meet at Moxie's, a restaurant by the airport, and Ms. Rasuli said she would meet him there. He kept pushing her to let him pick her up and she finally relented. She found out that he was already outside her house. Their conversations were all through Facebook. When they got to Moxie's the discussion was the same, why she could not go out with him, there was no trust, but he did not seem to want to understand. He sat beside her, was very affectionate, which she rebuffed and he became upset. When they left the restaurant, got into his car he completely broke down and started to cry. He was banging his head on the window saying how bad his life was and his trial. He finally agreed they would just be friends and only talk over Facebook. He then drove her home.

[36] They continued to talk on Facebook and then the next day, January 31st, he began talking again about being together and he did not understand why they couldn't be together. They got into an argument over this and Ms. Rasuli decided to block his Facebook account, BuddyFriend. She sent him one final message to tell him it was over and blocked him. She believed she did this on the early morning of February 1st.

[37] The following day, before going to work in the afternoon, she discovered he had created a new Facebook account, Buddyone Friend, and there were 10-13 new messages. The Crown showed Ms. Rasuli four type-written pages and asked if she knew what the document was. She testified that these messages are on her Facebook account and she copied them and put them in the document that was entered as Exhibit 1. Ms. Rasuli received these Facebook messages on her smart phone while she was at work at Tim Hortons. Exhibit 1 reflects the messages that came into her Facebook account and her responses back, which are attached to these reasons as Appendix A. It was Ms. Rasuli's evidence that these messages, who she believed came from Mr. Amiri, scared her because of their contents.

[38] The messages indicated he believed she was running away from him but no one would care for her as much as he did. He told her the reason she acted this way was because she had too many guys around her, who wanted to fuck her but they would spit her out. He told her he had not slept the previous night because of her and he was "coming to [her] work or to [her] house" so she should "be ready to call the cops on [him]" because he "[couldn't] take it anymore."

[39] He told her he was going to speak to Ms. Rasuli's mom and dad and get Nasir as well as the hazara guys from Rexdale to explain the whole story to her parents. He told her would "come to her work place and legally do what he has to do." He told he was charged with DUI and now he is trying to change DUI law and he has no legal expense. He told her that she got him "crazy now, so [he] could be [her] best friend or [her] worst. Make [her] choice wisely, please!"

[40] Ms. Rasuli responded and said "It's over. Why can't you let it go? What do you want?" Mr. Amiri told her that Ms. Rasuli "fucked [him] in the head real good, then brushed [him] off, cutting [him] off. Why do you do these things?" Mr. Amiri told her in "Moxies, if there is an issue [he'll] say let's leave it and we talk tomorrow, if you have to chase [him] by saying: run away that's all you do." Ms. Rasuli responded that she never chased him, he always chased her and it needed to stop as he was scaring her. He told her that he still had a soft spot for her and he did not want to play his game yet. He told her that she had "got [him] fucked up now."

[41] Ms. Rasuli again asked Mr. Amiri to stop, he could not force her to be with him or talk to him. He cannot threaten her as it was not right. She told him he planted things in his own head. She asked him to please go and live his own life. Mr. Amiri told her he was not forcing her or threatening her but the way she treated him was totally unfair and she should choose her words wisely.

[42] Mr. Amiri, in these Facebook messages, told Ms. Rasuli he wanted her to call the cops on him so he could take her to trial and publish her case on his website so that when people Google her they will know who she really is. Ms. Rasuli then responded as follows:

"What the hell is wrong with you? You can't take me to court. I've done nothing wrong. Look what you're doing now. You're harassing me. You've being completely unreasonable. What truth? That I was talking to Nasir WHICH you knew about. You're going to do to my mom and my dad and tell them what? That you're crazy and that you're determined to ruin my life. If you publish anything about me on your website I'll sue for libel and slander."

[43] Mr. Amiri then responded:

"You sound ridiculous now, lol Sweetheart you don't even know what you are saying. Right now you don't have enough against me for harassment, ok. Should you decide to brush me off then Ill come to your work and embarrass you in front of everyone and tell everyone how you have treated me. Then you can call the cops and arrest me for harassment or indirect assault. Once I am charged then Ill take the matter to trial. Court is public documents therefore, these the case can be publishes publicly as they are the facts before the court. I will tell the judge what was the reason why this is happening and what I say will be recorded and scripted for public refrence. So you can't even sue for nothing sweetheart. Couse you don't know how libel and slander operates in conjunction. I have respect for your mom as she needs to know who really her daughter is. Please take a step back and think what your gona say next because you can make things very ugly for yourself. I just want to know where you stand are you my friend or my enemy."

[44] The text messages from Buddyone Friend all came on February 1, 2012. Ms. Rasuli testified Mr. Amiri's comments in the Facebook messages frightened her. She believed he had gone absolutely insane, he was upset and angry beyond the point of no return and he would do anything in his power to ruin her and bring her down. She responded that he could not take her to court as he had no grounds. She told him, "How could [he] say [he] cared for her, [did he] hear [himself]. [He] sounded absolutely insane." She then blocked this new Facebook account and she believed she blocked him around 3 p.m. February 1st. While she was at work, shortly after she blocked Buddyone Friend, her supervisor advised her that someone just drove through the drive-thru asking for her. She saw Mr. Amiri standing outside the front door of the Tim Hortons smoking a cigarette. She told her supervisor she needed to speak to this guy and she went outside. She asked Mr. Amiri what he was doing there. Mr. Amiri is acting like nothing had happened between them and was asking her what she was up to. She told him he could not be there, he couldn't follow her. He told her "Until the day that I die, I will always follow you. At work you're going to see me, in front of your house you're going to see me, I'm just going to be everywhere." She told him, "You cannot do this. I don't want to call the cops but you're gonna force me to call the cops." He said he wanted her to call the cops and he dared her to call them. He then asked her when she finished work because he was going to drive her home. Ms. Rasuli told him she was not going to tell him when she finished work as she did not want him to wait for her or drive her home. Mr. Amiri told her he would come inside Tim Hortons and do some work until she was finished work.

[45] Ms. Rasuli testified Mr. Amiri went to his car and retrieved some books and his bag and returned to the Tim Hortons and went inside. She asked him, "Are you honestly doing this?" He looked at her and shrugged. Ms. Rasuli called 911 because she was scared of what he was going to do. She called from the Tim Hortons bathroom. When she came out Mr. Amiri had left the Tim Hortons.

[46] Ms. Rasuli testified that on January 18, 2012, she believed that Mr. Amiri was following her. This was after she had attempted to break off their relationship on January 16. Mr. Amiri said that he knew she got a ride home from work and was able to describe the person who picked her up. She became concerned that he would always be following her, particularly after the Facebook messages, his showing up at her work like he said he would, coming inside and his telling her he was going to wait until she finished work. She was scared for herself because she got off work late and often did not get home until after midnight. She also became scared for her family so she called her mother on the day she called 911. She told her mother everything that happened, told her to lock the doors and call if a man was outside the house so Nargis could call the police.

[47] Ms. Rasuli agreed in cross-examination that Mr. Amiri had accused her of taking some of his money on December 24, 2011. He gave Ms. Rasuli some money to hold for him when he was playing poker at the hotel room. When he asked for his money back he felt she had short changed him by $50. Later the same night Ms. Rasuli testified she found a $50 bill and gave it to him. Mr. Amiri was still upset and he ripped it up in front of her. It was Ms. Rasuli's evidence that on Boxing Day they went shopping, had dinner and then went back to a hotel where they were intimate. She agreed she had not told the police about the missing money.

[48] She did not remember an argument with Mr. Amiri, early in the morning, when they were staying at a hotel on New Year's Eve in Niagara Falls concerning Mr. Amiri accusing her of taking some of his money. She denied them arguing about money when they were in Niagara Falls. He had got up early and wanted to go home and she did not want to leave because it was only three or four in the morning.

[49] She agreed that the industrial area they went to talk after he picked her up from the club in Mississauga was her idea as she knew the area and she did not want them sitting in his car outside her house.

[50] She testified that after they broke up on January 19 she did not keep the texts they had with each other, she deleted them all. In cross-examination she testified that Exhibit 1 was created by her cutting and pasting the Facebook messages. She agreed it would be easy for someone to create such a conversation, however, she testified the police saw the original Facebook messages on her cell phone.

[51] She agreed that she was concerned her father would come home on January 23rd and see Mr. Amiri outside in his car. This was the early morning after Nasir had driven her home from work and Mr. Amiri was in his car outside her house. This was why she came outside to speak to Mr. Amiri because she did not want her father to find out she had been involved with Mr. Amiri. She was concerned that Mr. Amiri would speak to her father when he came home from work.

[52] On January 24, Mr. Amiri showed up at her work again and offered to drive her home. She initially refused but then agreed to let him drive her home. They talked for a while in his car and then he drove her home. Then on January 25th she changed her cell phone number and blocked his Ali Amiri Facebook account. She agreed there was no communication for a few days and then she started getting messages from BuddyFriend on Facebook. On January 30th, she agreed to go out to Moxie's for dinner with him. In cross-examination Mr. Starrer pressed Ms. Rasuli about why if she had broken off with him was she agreeing to see him at Moxie's. It was her evidence that she went to dinner with Mr. Amiri because she felt sorry for him as he was going through so much; he had the DUI trial and the Law Society. He was very persistent in saying he just wanted to talk so she agreed to meet with him and looking back, it was bad judgment on her part.

[53] She agreed in cross-examination that she blocked Mr. Amiri's Facebook account, BuddyFriend, in the early morning of February 1st. She denied setting up the conversation that is reflected in Exhibit 1. She denied setting up a Facebook account Buddyone Friend and writing both sides of the conversation. Mr. Amiri came to her work the same day that these Facebook messages were sent. She saw him outside the front door to Tim Horton's and went outside to speak to him. She denied pushing him. She agreed she was upset with him. She agreed she got very upset when he told her it was a public place and he could go inside and sit down if he wanted to.

[54] When he told her to call the police and told her he was going to follow her she felt scared and thought he was going to keep harassing her. When she told him she did not want to drive home Mr. Amiri told her he would continue to come to the Tim Horton's every time she was working and sit there to wait for her to go home.

[55] She agreed that Nasir pulled her hair after he spoke to Mr. Amiri outside her house because he was upset with her. He had feelings for her and did not know the extent of her relationship with Mr. Amiri.

[56] She agreed that Nasir pulled her hair after he spoke to Mr. Amiri outside her house because he was upset with her. He had feelings for her and did not know the extent of her relationship with Mr. Amiri. She disagreed that Mr. Amiri asked her in the Tim Horton's on February 1st for the money he said she had taken from him. She did not take or owe Mr. Amiri any money. She agreed that when she was at the hotel on December 26 she had consumed alcohol and was drunk. She denied saying she wanted to kill herself or do harm to herself. She denied calling Mr. Amiri later on January 19th, after she broke up with him, saying if he did not meet her she would do herself harm. She disagreed that she was suicidal. She agreed that after the break up Mr. Amiri drove her to work but only rarely.

Evidence of Ali Amiri

[57] Mr. Amiri testified on his own behalf. He testified he first met Ms. Rasuli at a poker game in November 2011, between the 15th and the 19th. He went to a local kabob house to eat and he met two guys who invited him to a hotel to play poker. He arrived around 11:30 p.m. and people started to leave around 12:30 a.m. There was a girl who introduced herself as Nargis. He told her his name. She asked what he did and he told her he was a paralegal. They left around 1 a.m. to get sandwiches from Subway. He testified that on the elevator he pushed her gently and she smiled so he knew she was down for it.

[58] He stayed there that night and he and Nargis lay down on the sofa bed and talked for most of the night. They slept for only a short time. The next day he drove the two guys who had stayed in the hotel and Nargis home. He drove the guys first and then he took Nargis to a Tim Horton's for breakfast. He testified they kissed and then he drove her home. They exchanged phone numbers. He texted her and she responded at one point saying, "Don't contact me anymore." He thought she was joking so he texted her back, "It was nice knowing you have a nice life. Good luck with everything." A week later she texted him with her new phone number. He said they began texting each other quite a lot. He took her out to the movies.

[59] One night she told him she wanted to party and wanted to go to his place but he suggested a hotel. She wanted to drink so he bought some alcohol. They went to the hotel and were intimate. She got really drunk and started crying at one point. She told Mr. Amiri she did not usually go so fast and then she ran out of the room. She came back and was crying and told him her life story. She was supposed to marry this guy but he left her for her best friend. She told him she tried to kill herself on two occasions. Mr. Amiri testified he kind of felt sorry for her and he told her he was not going to leave her.

[60] A week later he was invited to another poker tournament. He took $300 out of the bank. He went to a convenience store and bought a deck of cards and cigarettes. In front of the guys who were there he told Nargis to take his money to hold it for him. He played poker; things got heated so he left as he did not want to get involved in a fight. He called Nargis from downstairs as she had remained. She said she was in the middle of a game. Mr. Amiri asked her to come down and give him his money so she came down and handed him some money. When he counted it was only $150. He texted her and asked if she got robbed by the guys, she texted no, why do you say that. He texted her that he was short money and for her to check her bag. She came downstairs and handed him another $50. She went back upstairs to finish her game.

[61] It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that when Nargis came downstairs she was with a guy and she gave him her phone number before he left. Mr. Amiri confronted her again that there was still money missing. She told him she had given him everything he had given her. Mr. Amiri testified he took the $50 bill she had given him, ripped it up, threw it in her face and started walking away. She ran after him apologizing and saying she did not steal his money. He forgot about it and drove her home.

[62] Mr. Amiri testified it was hard to remember everything because it was approximately two years ago. She would call and get him to pick her up after work four times a week. She called and wanted him to lend her money to pay her phone bill. He avoided that conversation and never lent her money. They went out shopping on Boxing Day at Yorkdale and he bought her a bag. Then they went to dinner afterwards.

[63] They went to Niagara Falls for New Year's Eve. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that Nargis really likes to drink. So he bought liquor and they went to a hotel. Then they went to the casino and he won $800. They returned to the hotel and Mr. Amiri fell asleep. He woke up around 3 a.m., had a cigarette and then checked his jeans. He does not have a wallet; he keeps his money loose in his pocket. He discovered he was $500 short. He woke her up and asked where his money was. She said she did not know what he was talking about. Mr. Amiri wanted to leave the hotel immediately. She did not want to go home until the morning. They decided to go back to bed and leave later that morning.

[64] Mr. Amiri testified that before they went to the casino Nargis was texting someone. He asked her who was she texting and she it was just a friend, who was leaving the country, Nasir.

[65] On January 3 or 5, 2012, Mr. Amiri was visiting two of his cousins, Samir and Nasier, who live close to the Tim Horton's where Nargis worked. He had a coffee outside the Tim Horton's and was telling his cousins about Nargis. He texted her to say that he was outside and he was there to drive her home. Mr. Amiri then testified he was with Samir and Wahid, not Nasier. Samir and Nasier are brothers but he was with Samir and Wahid. Nargis texted him back and said she did not need a ride home as her mom was picking her up.

[66] He texted that he did not see her mom's car and she texted don't worry she will come. Mr. Amiri then observed Nargis coming out the back door of the Tim Horton's being picked up by Nasier, his cousin. Mr. Amiri testified this got him kind of concerned and it "pissed" him off. He started calling her cell phone but she would not pick up. He texted her asking what was going on. He told her he wanted to talk to her and get over and done with this. He was tired of what was going on. She texted him to call her in the morning. He testified he texted her that he would meet her outside her house so they could talk about this. He drove to her house and parked down the street a bit, not right in front of her house.

[67] He saw Nasier drop Nargis off and then Nasier drove to where Mr. Amiri was parked and they spoke to each other. Nasier asked about his relationship was with Nargis and Mr. Amiri told him that she was lying naked in his bed in Niagara Falls when she was texting him on New Year's Eve. According to Mr. Amiri, Nasier was quite upset, he pulled Nargis' hair and she went into her house. Mr. Amiri testified he forgot to say that Nargis came back out with the bag he had purchased for her on Boxing Day. That was when Nasier pulled her hair. Nasier broke up with her after this and left.

[68] Mr. Amiri testified he also tried to break up his relationship with Nargis but she threatened to kill herself. She gave him the bag and went back into her house. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that he had the texts they were sending each other that night. It was agreed that Mr. Amiri could read them out because he had not printed them because of the flood and power outage the previous night (July 8, 2013).

[69] When Mr. Amiri looked at the texts, while he was in the witness stand, he realized that this incident with Nasier happened on January 22nd not the 3rd or 5th. Mr. Amiri testified he tried to break up with Nargis on many occasions but each time she said she would kill herself and he would get arrested and blamed for her murder. As a result of this, he told Nargis about his ex-girlfriend from England, that his heart still belonged to her and this was why he could not be with her.

[70] Mr. Amiri read what he said was the first text from Nargis on January 22, 2012, it is on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2:

"face. How do you expect me to act? Things become difficult, so you run to your ex. God only knows what you would have done if she lived here. You chose her, not me. If you hadn't done what you did, if you never contacted then you and I would still be together. You should have heard the way you spoke bout her Friday night. I felt sick to my stomach cause you still love her."

[71] Ms. Rasuli's next text was:

"You are a liar. Look at how you are acting and what you were saying that night. And you think that you were choosing me? Lol god you must think I'm an idiot. You lied about leaving your phone at your brother's place. That night you weren't going to tell me shit. You only said something cause you were high."

[72] It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that he tried to break up with Ms. Rasuli by trying to avoid her. He would not answer her calls and he would leave his phone in different places. The text messages he read from his phone he testified were chronologically sequenced. Mr. Amiri was using his new phone to read the texts as he had photographed the screen of his old cell phone when it was plugged in. It was his evidence that the texts could not be altered.

[73] The next text read by Mr. Amiri was also from Nargis:

"You don't love me. Why did you contact her? You're still in love with her. Stop feeding me bullshit now. Yes i lied but never to your face and i apologized. You lied continuously to my face and you still think you're faultless and that I'm the obey (sic) to blame."

[74] The next text in sequence was also from Ms. Rasuli:

"Remember what you said. Thank you for breaking up with me cause now i know I'm meant to be with her. I've only had one relationship and that's it."

[75] The next text is the first text sent by Mr. Amiri:

"That's what you wanted doh right, when you said lets be friends. So lets forget about everything that happened and start over as friends???"

[76] Mr. Amiri testified the next text came from Nargis:

"I know what it feels like to live with a broken heart but my story calls for it not yours."

[77] Ms. Rasuli sent the following further three texts in sequence:

"There is nothing to talk about. I fucked up. Im a bitch and a whore. Im the worst person in the world. I just want to die right now."

"You're just saying that for me to come out. You're going to do or say the opposite."

"Don't lie. You should hate me right now like Nasir does. You're going to hit me or something."

[78] Mr. Amiri then responds: "I would never hit Nargis."

[79] The text messages, as photographed by Mr. Amiri, do not contain the time the message is sent or received, just the dates of the text, which were January 22nd and 23rd, 2012. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that the texts started late in the evening of January 22nd and continued into the early morning hours of January 23rd.

[80] The following sequence of text were sent just before midnight.

Nargis Rasuli: You shouldn't love me. Im a bad person. I don't deserve anything good in this world.

Ali Amiri: Come out Nargis.

Ali Amiri: Ohhh my god. Please

Nargis Rasuli: I can't believe you

Ali Amiri: You cant believe me what?

Nargis Rasuli: Of you. Of this entire situation. I almost threw up when i came inside.

Ali Amiri: Why

Nargis Rasuli: Cause its so fucked up. Im so fucked up.

Ali Amiri: My battery is getting low.

Nargis Rasuli: What did you guys talk about

Ali Amiri: Come out please and ill tell you everything

[81] The next text messages are sent or received on January 23rd, sometime after midnight:

Nargis Rasuli: Just want to shoot myself in the head

Nargis Rasuli: Would you miss me if i died?

Ali Amiri: Shut up!

Ali Amiri: Don't say such things

Nargis Rasuli: Im serious. You'll get over me in a fee weeks. You'll definitely forget me after a year. Just think bout me sporadically

Ali Amiri: What are you attempting to imply?

Nargis Rasuli: Nothing. I just feel extremely depressed

[82] Mr. Amiri testified that Ms. Rasuli came out of her house at that point and they talked. According to Mr. Amiri she talked about already trying to kill herself previously when her boyfriend left her for her best friend. Mr. Amiri testified he could not in those circumstances end the relationship and they decided to stay together. He still had feelings for her although he had good reasons to break up with her. She then went back inside her house and Mr. Amiri went home.

[83] Mr. Amiri provided the following exchange of emails which were sent and received the next morning:

Ali Amiri: " Anyways so what happened since yesterday did he apologize for pulling your hair? received your msg at 5:46"

Nargis Rasuli: " No he just sent me nasty messages calling me names and that i need help and shit like that."

Ali Amiri: " I think he shouldn't have called you names after he pulled your hair, totally unnecessary! But you are something else aren't you;)"

Nargis Rasuli: " How so"

Ali Amiri: "Don't get me wrong but you're a pimp, lol"

Nargis Rasuli: "How am i a pimp Wtf? ??"

Ali Amiri: "Did you realize what happened last night, lol"

Nargis Rasuli: "What do you mean Are you ok?"

Ali Amiri: "Are you?"

Nargis Rasuli: "Ya. Why wouldn't I be? So what did you think. bout last night"

Ali Amiri: "The situation has got me crazy"

Nargis Rasuli: Huh

Ali Amiri: Doh

Nargis Rasuli : Crazy how? Crazy how?

Ali Amiri: This whole situation was too much.

Nargis Rasuli: Are you starting to have second thoughts about me?

Ali Amiri: [Blank text]

Ali Amiri: But you are fucked up doh,

Nargis Rasuli: How? ???

Ali Amiri: One day your cool, the next day you go crazy

Nargis Rasuli: How? :(

Ali Amiri: Don't get upset, but that's how you act doh!

Nargis Rasuli: How though ??? Please elaborate on previous message

Ali Amiri: You get mad easily on little things without giving significant weight to positive aspects of a situation

Ali Amiri: I geuss no more elaborations

Nargis Rasuli: Hmm

[84] Mr. Amiri testified that he did not have the text that she sent at 5:46 and was unable to explain why it was not on his phone. The photographs of the text messages ended after the last one referenced above; however, it appeared from the last page of Exhibit 2 there were further text messages. Mr. Amiri testified he did not photograph all of the text messages in his cell phone, only the ones he believed were important. There were texts both before and after the texts he photographed, which are still on his phone.

[85] Mr. Amiri saw Ms. Rasuli a couple of times more when she would ask him for a ride home from work. He ignored her calls and he stopped picking her up from work. When he spoke to her she would say she was going to come and wait in his lobby until he came down. So he decided to continue seeing her.

[86] About a week after the texts noted above, Mr. Amiri confronted Nargis, in person, about whether she had taken his money at the second poker tournament and at the Niagara Casino. Mr. Amiri testified that Nargis started to make jokes about it as she thought it was funny and because of this, Mr. Amiri was confident that she had taken his money. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that he called Nargis, talked to her and told her he did not want to have anything to do with her anymore. He asked her to give him the money she had taken. Ms. Rasuli told him she did not have his money but she would be at work that night and she would see him there. He made this call to her on the same day he was arrested by the police.

[87] He went to her work and went to the drive-thru, got a coffee and asked the lady if Nargis was working. The lady said she had left for home. He parked and was standing outside the front doors of the Tim Hortons and Nargis came out, asked what he wanted. He testified he told her he did not want this anymore, just give him his money and he would not see her anymore. Ms. Rasuli then pushed him, with both hands, on his chest and spilled half his coffee. She told him to leave right away. He told her it was a local coffee shop, a public place and she could not tell him to leave. Nargis told him if he came inside she would call the police. Mr. Amiri testified he told her why would she call the police as he was not even talking to her and this was the first time he had ever been to this Tim Horton's. He testified he had never been inside previously.

[88] He told Ms. Rasuli he was going to get his work and sit inside the Tim Horton's. He went to his car and got his laptop and his books and went inside. He purchased a donut and sat at one of the tables. Ms. Rasuli told him before he purchased his donut that she had warned him she would call the police if he came inside. She then went inside the back of the Tim Horton's to phone. Mr. Amiri was only in the store for five or ten minutes because his chiropractor called him to remind him he had an appointment that day. So he left and went to his chiropractor and then went home. He received a phone call from the police asking him to come into the station and he knew that Nargis had called the police. He attended the police station and was arrested.

[89] It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that he did not send Facebook messages in Exhibit 1 and Ms. Rasuli made them up. Mr. Amiri conceded he did not provide Mr. Starrer with the text messages so they could be put to Ms. Rasuli in cross-examination.

[90] In cross-examination Mr. Amiri testified that his old cell phone deleted older text messages once the total number of text messages in a conversation between himself and another person reached a certain number, which he believed was between 200 and 300 messages. He testified you could program the phone's capacity but never indicated if he had used that feature. He did not know for sure how many text messages his phone would store.

[91] On July 9, 2013, Mr. Amiri went to a Tim Horton's over lunch and emailed the photographs he took of the text messages between himself and Ms. Rasuli to the Crown, Ms. Montemurro. She printed the 25 pages of text messages, set out above, which were filed as Exhibit 2. It became clear towards the end of Ms. Montemurro's cross-examination on July 9, 2013 that there were text messages on Mr. Amiri's old cell phone, which he had not reproduced. Mr. Amiri had the old cell phone in court but not the charger so it was impossible for Ms. Montemurro to examine it. Mr. Amiri was adamant he had reproduced all of the text messages that were relevant and he wanted the case decided on what he had presented. Over his objections I adjourned court early to allow him to retrieve the charger and attend the Crown's office so Ms. Montemurro could examine his cell phone. Initially he told me his brother was in the parking lot and then he told me his brother was 15 minutes away. He did not attend the Crown's office on July 9, rather, he advised me on July 22nd his brother arrived at 4:35 p.m. and he thought the court was closed, so he left. He did not respond to the Crown's emails on July 10th or July 11th 2013 until July 12th at 2:54 a.m., advising he could not meet with her that day as it was Friday but he could meet with her the following week or before court on July 22nd, although he knew from discussions in court and from her email she was not available the following week. He did not arrive at the courthouse until after 9:30 a.m. on July 22nd despite the Crown requesting he arrive by 9:00 a.m. so she could have sufficient time to review the texts on his cell phone.

[92] Mr. Amiri agreed in cross-examination the text messages between Nargis and himself start in his cell phone on January 21, 2012. There are no earlier texts. His explanation for this is because the phone only has capacity for 200 to 300 messages in any one conversation. Once you reach capacity the earliest text is deleted each time a new text is received.

[93] The Crown asked Mr. Amiri if he was aware that when you are looking at a specific text message there is a screen that comes up that allows the user to "copy message text", "forward text" or "delete text." Mr. Amiri looked at the phone and confirmed that those are three options on his phone. He agreed that it was possible therefore to delete text messages.

[94] When Mr. Amiri was questioned about whether he deleted text messages from his phone he denied doing that and then said for the first time that he had spoken to Ms. Rasuli on the telephone; so there was a combination of texting and talking.

The Applicable Law

[95] Section 264 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

(1) "No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or is reckless 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."

[96] In R. v. Sillipp, 1997 ABCA 346, 120 C.C.C. (3d) 384 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1998), 228 N.R. 195 n (S.C.C.) cited with approval in R. v. Kohl, 2009 ONCA 100, 94 O.R. (3d) 241(Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Krushel, 142 C.C.C. (3d) 1, Berger J., for the court, set out the five essential elements of the offence of criminal harassment that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (para. 18):

1. It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264(2) (a), (b), (c), or (d) of the Criminal Code.

2. It must be established that the complainant was harassed.

3. It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;

4. It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and

5. It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable.

[97] The word "harassed" in section 264(1) of the Criminal Code has been defined as

"tormented; troubled; worried continually or chronically plagued; bedeviled and badgered": R. v. Kosikar, 138 C.C.C. (3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 25. Those words are to be considered individually, not cumulatively: R. v. Kordrostami, 143 C.C.C. (3d) 488 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 10-11.

[98] In R. v. Ohenhen, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 309 (Ont. C.A.) MacFarlane, J.A., in determining what constitutes "repeated communication" held as follows:

"While one instance of unwanted conduct can be sufficient to satisfy s. 264(2) (c) and (b), it will not be sufficient to satisfy s. 264(2) (b). More than one instance of unwanted conduct will be necessary to meet paragraph (b); however, in my view, there is not and should not be any minimum number of instances of unwanted conduct beyond this to trigger these subsections. Provided the conduct occurs more than once, in my view, the actus reus can be made out. It will be a question of fact for the trier in each case whether there has been repeated conduct. The approach is a contextual one. The trier will consider the conduct that is the subject of the charge against the background of the relationship and/or history between the complainant and accused. It is in this context that a determination will be made as to whether there has been repeated communication. On the facts of this case, it was clear that neither the communications could be characterized as innocuous or accidental. In the context in which they were made, these two communications would be sufficient to constitute "repeatedly" communicating as set out in s. 264(2) (b)."

Analysis

[99] As in any criminal case, Mr. Amiri is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have reminded myself that I need not firmly believe or disbelieve any witness and that I can accept all, some or none of a witness' testimony. I have also reminded myself that the Crown must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as this term has been defined and explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.), R. v. Lifchus, 118 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, 147 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.). Proof of a probability of guilt does not amount to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of guilt to a near certainty is required in criminal proceedings.

[100] "I recognize that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to the issue of credibility. Accordingly, I must acquit the defendant if I accept his evidence or if it raises a reasonable doubt after considering it in the context of the evidence as a whole. If I reject his evidence, or it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must go on to ask whether the evidence that I do accept convinces me of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt."

[101] "A determination of guilt or innocence must not, however, devolve into a mere credibility contest between two witnesses. Such an approach erodes the operation of the presumption of innocence and the assigned standard of persuasion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: W.(D.) supra, at 409 per Cory J.; Avetsyan v. The Queen, 2000 SCC 56, 149 C.C.C. (3d) 77 (S.C.C.) at paras. 20-22, per Major J."

[102] As the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Hull, [2006] O.J. No 311 at para 5 noted:

"W.(D.) and other authorities prohibit triers of fact from treating the standard of proof as a credibility contest. Put another way, they prohibit the trier of fact from concluding that the standard of proof has been met simply because the trier of fact prefers the evidence of Crown witnesses to that of defence witnesses."

[103] I must assess the evidence of the complainant and the defendant in light of the totality of the evidence, which includes and permits comparing and contrasting the evidence of those witnesses. The Court of Appeal in Hull continued:

"However, such authorities do not prohibit the trier of fact from assessing an accused's testimony in light of the whole evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, and in so doing comparing the evidence of the witnesses. On the contrary, triers of fact have a positive duty to carry out such an assessment recognizing that one possible outcome of the assessment is that the trier of fact may be left with a reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of the accused."

[104] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means what it says. There is thus nothing illogical in rejecting the defendant's evidence but still not being sufficiently satisfied by the complainant's evidence to find that the case has been proven. A state of uncertainty at a trial like this, where the court has heard two conflicting versions from the two parties involved, is not uncommon. Ultimately, if I have a reasonable doubt on the whole of the case that arises from the evidence of the Crown witnesses, the evidence of the accused or the evidence of any other defence witness, or the absence of evidence, the charge must be dismissed: Lifchus.

[105] In applying these principles to the case at bar I must assess the evidence of Mr. Amiri in light of the totality of the evidence, including the evidence of the complainant, Ms. Rasuli. As I indicated previously, this is basically a "she said/he said" criminal harassment case.

[106] I must first determine whether I accept the evidence of Mr. Amiri. Based on an examination of the totality of the evidence, my overall assessment of Mr. Amiri is that he was not a credible or reliable witness and his evidence, in my view, is unworthy of belief. There were many occasions when he was extremely evasive in his answers. An example was his answers respecting when he discovered that Ms. Rasuli had changed her phone so he could no longer send her text messages. In my view, Mr. Amiri frequently attempted to anticipate where the Crown was going in cross-examination and he would tailor his evidence and seemed to be making things up to suit his agenda. Mr. Amiri was often argumentative in cross-examination, frequently interrupted questioning, on many occasions he would answer another question as opposed to the question he was asked and on occasion he refused to answer questions because he did not believe they were relevant. There were many occasions where I was of the view that Mr. Amiri was making things up as he was testifying. In my opinion this is why there are so many examples of inconsistencies between his evidence in-chief and his evidence in cross-examination. His evidence contains a number of inconsistencies and explanations which I find do not accord with common sense. I have set out below some examples of areas in Mr. Amiri's evidence that lead me to the conclusion that he was not a credible or reliable witness.

1. Mr. Amiri initially testified that he took Ms. Rasuli to a movie on their first date yet later in cross-examination he testified he never took her to a movie, they went to Milestone's on their first date. He then testified that they never went to a movie together, he did not recall going to the movies with her.

2. Mr. Amiri testified that at the second poker tournament he gave Ms. Rasuli his money to hold onto. Initially he testified he was short $50, later in cross-examination he testified it was perhaps $85 short, then he returned to his first number of $50, reduced it at one point to $40 or $45. After lunch he testified he played one round for $20 and there should have been $265 remaining but she only gave him back $200, so the number changed again to $65 that she had taken from him.

3. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence in chief and on the first day of cross-examination that he was the one who attempted to break off the relationship with Ms. Rasuli. On his second day of cross-examination, when he was confronted with p. 5 of Exhibit 2 and a number of the texts he omitted, which all made reference to Ms. Rasuli breaking off with him, he changed his evidence and testified that they both broke up with each other at different times but he broke up with her most of the time.

4. It was Mr. Amiri's evidence in chief that on January 22nd when he saw Ms. Rasuli get into Nasier's car he tried calling her but she did not pick up so he texted her and asked what was going on. She texted for him to call her in the morning. He texted her that he would meet her at her house as he wanted everything to be done and over. He later remembered that Ms. Rasuli brought the bag he bought her on Boxing Day when she came out after all the texts he read into evidence were sent. In cross-examination he testified he called and/or texted Ms. Rasuli after he saw her get into Nasier's car. He told her he was going to meet her at her house, he wanted the bag he had given her to be returned to him and the relationship was over. None of these texts were on Mr. Amiri's old cell phone. Later in his evidence in cross-examination he testified that they actually talked and he told her he wanted the bag to be returned to him while he was driving over to her house. The Crown discovered that one of the first text messages for January 22nd is consistent with Ms. Rasuli's evidence that Mr. Amiri texted her asking for the bag and the receipt back. She responded saying she no longer had the receipt but would bring the bag to her work and he could pick it up there. Mr. Amiri texted her back saying: "That's fine. I'll exchange it for something. What is the earliest I can pick it up from your workplace?" Ms. Rasuli responds, "I start at two. Come then." These texts that Mr. Amiri omitted from his photographs confirm Ms. Rasuli's evidence and are inconsistent with his own evidence. It is also significant that these text messages were omitted. I will deal further with this issue later in my reasons.

5. A further text which Mr. Amiri did not include in the text messages he testified he believed were important was the message following Ms. Rasuli telling him she started work at two. This message was also from Ms. Rasuli:

"Lol, you're hilarious. Go run back to your girlfriend. You know, the one with the smoking body and who can give you great head. Just come get the bag and never contact me again."

In my view, this is a significant omission as it confirms, once again, Ms. Rasuli's evidence that she broke off the relationship, and puts a lie to Mr. Amiri's evidence on this issue.

6. Mr. Amiri testified in-chief when he came to a text message he sent saying, "received your msg at 5:46" he testified that Ms. Rasuli must have sent him a text message prior to his sending that text. He testified he did not have that one. In cross-examination his evidence changed that it was not a text message she sent, it was a phone call or a voicemail.

7. Mr. Amiri also testified that he was talking to Ms. Rasuli on her cell phone, telling her he did not want to see her anymore, he did not want to have anything to do with her, they were through and she started crying, "Oh, I'm gonna kill myself tonight." The difficulty with this evidence is it is completely inconsistent with the content of the text messages provided by Mr. Amiri, which are contained in Exhibit 2.

8. He denied that Ms. Rasuli broke up with him on January 19 and maintained that he was the one attempting to break up with her. Yet the first text message provided by Mr. Amiri is cut off, he provided only part of that message, with the first word being "face". The portion he omitted from the beginning of Ms. Rasuli's text message was "Yeah, I know who I'm leaving. You're a liar. You lied right to my face." "Face" is the first word on the first message contained in Exhibit 2 on page one and two. This also is contradictory and inconsistent with Mr. Amiri's evidence but confirms Ms. Rasuli's evidence. In cross-examination Mr. Amiri was asked why the first part of the message was omitted and he was, in my view, particularly evasive, as he did not want to answer that question. When he finally answered that question he testified he omitted it because it was irrelevant to the criminal harassment charge. He finally conceded that it may be relevant to credibility but with respect to the charge he maintained it was not relevant.

9. As I indicated above Mr. Amiri was evasive in his answers as to when Ms. Rasuli changed her cell phone number, both in cross-examination on July 9th and on July 22nd. It was Ms. Rasuli's evidence she changed it on January 25th, 2012 and she also blocked his Ali Amiri Facebook account. When the Crown finally was able to examine the text messages on Mr. Amiri's old cell phone, she put to him that the last day there was any text messages was on January 25th. He finally agreed that this must have been the day she changed her phone number.

10. Mr. Amiri's evidence concerning how he knew Ms. Rasuli was at work on February 1st is internally inconsistent. In his evidence in-chief he testified he called her, asked her for his money and she told him she did not have it but they could see each other at her work. In cross-examination Mr. Amiri testified that Ms. Rasuli called him from a private number and asked him to pick her up to drive her to work that day and he told her, "No, fuck off." He could not recall if there was any discussion about whether she had his money. In my view, these are two significantly different versions of how they communicated on February 1. Ms. Rasuli testified that they only communicated through Facebook and she did not ask him to come to her work, he told her in his messages he was going to come to her work or her house to embarrass her.

11. Further, Mr. Amiri's evidence is inconsistent as to the events that take place when he was at Tim Horton's on February 1st and his interaction with Ms. Rasuli. First, he initially testified in-chief that Ms. Rasuli tells him outside if he doesn't leave she will call the police. In cross-examination he testified that she did not tell him she would call the police until he came inside the Tim Horton's. Second, in his evidence in-chief he testified he stayed inside for five or ten minutes and then he received a call from his chiropractor. In cross he testified he was inside the Tim Horton's no more than five minutes. I agree with the Crown's submission that what is most troubling about Mr. Amiri's evidence concerning February 1st and his coming to Tim Horton's is his explanation as to why he would have come there and then go inside. His explanation makes no sense whatsoever with his evidence of wanting to end the relationship with Ms. Rasuli and be done with her. Why go into the Tim Horton's he has never gone into before? She tells him to leave or she will call the police, yet he says it is a public place and then goes to his parked car and retrieves his laptop and books and enters the restaurant to do his work. In my view, this is completely inconsistent with his evidence of wanting to break up with Ms. Rasuli, wanting to have nothing to do with her. His behaviour and actions, in my view, are more consistent with the Facebook messages sent from Buddyone Friend, where the author is telling Ms. Rasuli to call the police.

[107] It is very concerning that Mr. Amiri omitted a number of text messages, which confirm Ms. Rasuli's evidence about her being the one who broke up with him, from the photographs he provided to the court. Although Mr. Amiri denied he intentionally omitted the first two lines of the first text message in Exhibit 2, I find that is the only reasonable conclusion I am able to come to. Those two lines and several earlier text messages put a lie to his position that he was the one who tried to break up with Ms. Rasuli. I find that he intentionally omitted these texts. His conduct in not having the charger in court so the old cell phone could be examined by the Crown further supports this finding. His conduct in leaving because he thought the court was closed at 4:35 p.m. and not attending the Crown's office so Ms. Montemurro could examine the cell phone also demonstrate his deliberate attempt to prevent these texts from being seen by the Crown and the Court. This explanation makes no sense particularly having regard to the fact that Mr. Amiri's stated profession is that of a paralegal who frequently appears in court. Further, during one of Mr. Amiri's applications we stayed in the courthouse until just after 5 p.m. and he would have seen that the court was not closed and locked up. His failure to respond to the Crown's emails and then arriving late on July 22nd further support the conclusion I have drawn. Those text messages were detrimental to his position and I find that Mr. Amiri thought he could prevent them from being discovered. The omitted texts, in my view, were very relevant to the issues in this case and to the charge before the court.

[108] I agree with the Crown's submission that the flow of messages in Exhibit 2 reveals that there are text messages which have been deleted. They could only have been deleted by Mr. Amiri. Some of the texts only make sense if they are in response to texts which are not in the photographs or still not on the phone. On page 8 of Exhibit 2 there are a series of texts from Ms. Rasuli. One of them says, "You're just saying that for me to come out. You're going to do or say the opposite." There is no text from Mr. Amiri just saying something prior to Ms. Rasuli's text. Consequently, her text message does not make sense. On page 15 of Exhibit 2 there is a text that indicates he received her message at 5:46 yet there is no text from Ms. Rasuli that this could relate to. Mr. Amiri testified that he texted Ms. Rasuli that he was outside to drive her home on January 22nd yet there are no texts in his cell phone which discuss him being there to drive her home. He testified Ms. Rasuli sent him a text that her mom was coming to drive her yet there are no texts in the phone. Initially Mr. Amiri maintained that it was not possible to delete individual text messages but his position changed when he was cross-examined and he was shown that a message comes up in the phone asking if you want to delete an individual message that is on the screen. I find that there are texts missing from Mr. Amiri's phone, which could only have been deleted by Mr. Amiri. Further, I find that Mr. Amiri's evidence that once the text messages reach the capacity of the cell phone the oldest texts are automatically deleted when new ones are received has no application in this case. It was his evidence that the capacity of his phone was 200 to 300 messages; he did not know the exact capacity. The evidence disclosed, however, that there were less than 100 text messages on his phone, far below the capacity he testified to. When he was asked about this he tried to reduce the capacity to 100 by changing his previous testimony.

[109] I am also of the view that, on Mr. Amiri's own evidence, there is a motive disclosed for Mr. Amiri to be upset with Ms. Rasuli and to criminally harass her. He testified that he knew her schedule; he knew where she worked and when she got off work. This was why he was at her work at 11 p.m. on January 22nd to drive her home. His being at her work to drive her home is inconsistent with his evidence that he had been trying to break off with Ms. Rasuli early on in their relationship, yet he was at her work to drive her home. The Crown suggests that he was following Ms. Rasuli, which was also Ms. Rasuli's evidence; that was why he was there outside the Tim Horton's with his cousin and he saw Ms. Rasuli get into the car with Nasier. He testified that this caused him concern and it "pissed" him off. This was not the first time Mr. Amiri referred to being upset because Ms. Rasuli was paying attention to other men. At the second poker tournament, when he accused her of not giving him all of his money he testified that when Nargis finally came downstairs she was with one of the guys from the poker game and she gave him her phone number. He questioned her about why she did that. It was my opinion when he referred to this that he was upset by her giving another man her phone number. Certainly the Facebook messages sent by Buddyone Friend on February 1st reflect that the individual who sent the messages to Ms. Rasuli was upset with her because of all the men she was involved with.

[110] Mr. Amiri's explanation of how he ended up driving to Ms. Rasuli's house on January 22nd also supports the inference that he was following her. I have already identified the inconsistencies in his evidence concerning how he communicated to her that he was going to meet her at her house to talk with her and end things once and for all. As well as the inconsistencies concerning his asking Ms. Rasuli to return the bag he bought for her on Boxing Day. He did not park his car in front of her house; he parked it down the street a bit. Ms. Rasuli testified that she had Nasier take a circuitous route because she believed that Mr. Amiri would follow them or go directly to her house to confront Nasier. After Ms. Rasuli gives him the bag and goes back into her house for a second time, why does Mr. Amiri continue to sit in his car down the street from her house texting her. He testified he wanted to end the relationship yet the texts do not support his testimony. Further, as I have already found, it was Ms. Rasuli who broke up with Mr. Amiri, the text messages he omitted conclusively prove that.

[111] It was Mr. Amiri's evidence that he did not send Facebook messages to Ms. Rasuli, either through BuddyFriend or Buddyone Friend. It was Ms. Rasuli's evidence that a few days after she changed her cell phone number and blocked the Ali Amiri Facebook account she started receiving messages from someone called BuddyFriend. She quickly came to believe that it was Mr. Amiri sending those Facebook messages. She agreed that they could be friends as she felt sorry for Mr. Amiri because of all the difficulties he was dealing with on his own. She never provided her new cell phone number to Mr. Amiri. They communicated, according to Ms. Rasuli's evidence, on Facebook through the account BuddyFriend. It was through these Facebook messages that Ms. Rasuli agreed on January 30th to go to Moxie's with Mr. Amiri for dinner. Mr. Amiri testified he was the one who wanted to break up with Ms. Rasuli but she threatened to kill herself so he relented and continued seeing her. I find the only way Mr. Amiri was able to communicate with Ms. Rasuli was this Facebook account, BuddyFriend. He testified he continued to communicate with her and he drove her, on occasion, to work and picked her up. Ms. Rasuli was also cross-examined by Mr. Starrer to suggest that she had not broken up with Mr. Amiri because she went to Moxie's with him on January 30th. Mr. Amiri never testified that he did not go to Moxie's with Ms. Rasuli, in fact, he did not mention Moxie's at all in his evidence.

[112] On January 31st, 2012, Ms. Rasuli decided to block the BuddyFriend Facebook account because Mr. Amiri had started to request that Ms. Rasuli resume her relationship with him. In the early morning hours of February 1st, she sent BuddyFriend, Mr. Amiri's Facebook account, a final Facebook message saying, "Goodbye, it's over."

[113] Shortly after blocking BuddyFriend, Ms. Rasuli testified she received 10-13 messages on a new account, Buddyone Friend. In my view, Mr. Amiri showing up at Ms. Rasuli's workplace supports that he is the author of those Facebook messages. In the Facebook messages Buddyone Friend says he is going to come to her work or her house and embarrass her, which is exactly what Mr. Amiri does within a very short time after the Facebook messages are sent. In my view, the comments attributed to Buddyone Friend are consistent with the tenor and content of the text messages filed by Mr. Amiri. Further, Buddyone Friend appears to have a legal background and legal knowledge, which also is consistent with Mr. Amiri being a paralegal. I am of the view that the language used in the Facebook messages is very similar to the manner in which Mr. Amiri speaks and his knowledge about legal proceedings. Mr. Amiri's behaviour at the Tim Horton's is consistent with the content of the Facebook messages in Exhibit 1. The comments about Ms. Rasuli calling the police to have him arrested for harassment are consistent with Mr. Amiri's conduct at the Tim Horton's, as I have indicated above. Just as the Facebook messages urge Ms. Rasuli to call the police, Mr. Amiri does the same thing when he is at the Tim Horton's. He told her to go ahead and call the police, as he was not doing anything wrong, Tim Horton's is a public place. Yet the question remains, why go into the Tim Horton's unless it is for the purpose of carrying through with his threats in the Facebook messages. I find that the reason Mr. Amiri went into the Tim Horton's despite being told outside she would call the police if he did not leave, was to continue his harassment of Ms. Rasuli. Mr. Amiri is a man who cannot take no for an answer and when he is challenged on a position he has taken he persists, he argues and he will not let it go. In fact, that is how he conducted himself throughout this trial.

[114] I do not accept Mr. Amiri's evidence that he coincidentally received a call from his chiropractor about an appointment that day and that is the reason he left the Tim Horton's. I find that he left the Tim Horton's because he saw Ms. Rasuli on the phone and he knew she was carrying through with calling the police. It is my view that Mr. Amiri fabricated the call from his chiropractor, which is a common theme in Mr. Amiri's evidence when he has to explain why he did something because he has been confronted with evidence that does not make sense. This is why there are so many examples of serious inconsistencies in Mr. Amiri's evidence as I have described above.

[115] I find on the totality of the evidence that Mr. Amiri sent the Facebook messages in Exhibit 1. He conceded to me that those messages in and of themselves would amount to criminal harassment. I do not accept Mr. Amiri's evidence for the reasons I have just given. Further, his evidence does not leave me with any reasonable doubt concerning any of the essential elements of criminal harassment.

[116] I found Ms. Rasuli's evidence to be forthright, credible, reliable and trustworthy. She provided very specific details with respect to the events she described. Despite not being shown any of the text messages produced by Mr. Amiri in his evidence, she was able to recount the contents of a number of the texts accurately and her evidence was confirmed. For example, with respect to Mr. Amiri requesting she return the bag he bought for her as a gift on Boxing Day, the text messages omitted by Mr. Amiri confirmed everything she testified to concerning Mr. Amiri's texts and her response. Another example was her evidence that she officially broke up with Mr. Amiri on January 19. This was confirmed by the text messages that Mr. Amiri had completely or partially omitted. Those same texts put a lie to Mr. Amiri's evidence concerning his evidence that he was the one attempting to break up with Ms. Rasuli. Ms. Rasuli was able to give specific dates and times as to when events took place, some of which were confirmed by text messages. She was not shaken on any of those details in cross-examination, despite an able cross-examination by Mr. Starrer. I find that her evidence was reliable and credible as she was able to provide very specific details that were confirmed, as I have indicated, by irrefutable evidence. I accept her evidence and find that based on her evidence the Crown has proven the essential elements of criminal harassment as set out in Sillipp.

1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264(2) (b) of the Criminal Code. I find that Mr. Amiri engaged in repeated communication of Ms. Rasuli between January 19 and February 1st, 2012 through the use of text messages, Facebook messages, phone calls and his attending at her home and workplace.

2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed. I accept the evidence of Ms. Rasuli that as a result of Mr. Amiri's conduct she was harassed by Mr. Amiri's conduct.

3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed; I find that Mr. Amiri engaged in the conduct knowing that Ms. Rasuli was harassed and scared by what he did because she told him so in texts, Facebook messages, phone calls and in person.

4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; I find that Ms. Rasuli was genuinely scared and frightened for her safety and the safety of her family. I accept her evidence that she was afraid of Mr. Amiri and what he might do and that she contacted her mother to warn her because she was afraid for her mother's safety.

5) It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable. In my view, any reasonable person would have been afraid and scared by Mr. Amiri's conduct and actions and would be reasonably concerned for their safety. In the Facebook messages, Exhibit 1, Mr. Amiri told Ms. Rasuli, "You got me crazy now, so I can be your best friend or your worst. Make your choice wisely, please!" In my view, this was a threat. Further, Exhibit 2 contains text messages from Mr. Amiri, which indicate Ms. Rasuli has made him crazy.

[117] Consequently, considering the totality of the evidence which I accept, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ali Amiri criminally harassed Nargis Rasuli and I find him guilty of that charge.

Released: October 30, 2013

Signed: "Justice Peter C. West"

R. v. Ali AMIRI

APPENDIX "A"

Buddyone Friend

Who is running away me or you. I run away decently. Tried to call it off a night you kept on provoking me. I cry for you my eyes out that i couldnt sleep last night cause it was hurting me, but you say no i cried for myself not you.

the reason why you act this way is because its obvious you too many guys around you. you dont appricaite me. you dont deserve me. I still tak to you. Follow you. listing to you.

All these guys want to fuck you and spit you out.... mark my words

you will never find some one that will care for you as much as i do, but you dont need me because you get too much attention from other guys.

am done!

February 1

Buddyone Friend

I did fucking sleep this all night cause of you. am coming to your work or to your house be ready to call the cops on me. cause i cant take it anymore....

didnt sleep the whole past two weeks

February 1

Buddyone Friend

Am gona tell your mom, and your dad. Il make sure nasir comes aswell, also the hazara guys from rexdale. I explain the whole story to your parents about how one guys drops you and the next pick you up.

But before that ill come your workplace and legaly do what I have to do. You'l see what i am capable of . I got charged with dui now I am trying to change dui law.

I have no legal expense but you do !

February 1

Buddyone Friend

You got me crazy now, so I can be your best friend or your worst. Make your choice wisely, please!

February 1

Buddyone Friend

???? what is going to be cause this needs to end right now, one way or the other, i can take this anymore

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

Its over. Why can't you let it go? What do you want?

February 1

Buddyone Friend

i sent the request so you get this message

listin why did you add me as a friend?

fucked me in the head real good

then brushed me off, cuting me off

February 1

Buddyone Friend

why do you do these things

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

What are you saying? You make no sense.

February 1

Buddyone Friend

you treated me like real person first, then you went crazy on me

i told you in moxies, if there is a an issue ill just say lets leave it and we talk tomoro, but you had to chase me by saying : run away that's all you do"

do you really enjoy what you are doing to me?

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

I never chased you. You always chase me and this needs to stop. You're scaring me.

February 1

Buddyone Friend

you dont get it what you did to me do you?lol

you plant things in my head make bring me close to you then, you throw me away. you take me as a sucker just like the way you treat the other stupid guys

February 1

Buddyone Friend

you played your game but i still have a soft spot for you as such i dont want to play my game yet.

you started this whole chasing game from the start by calling and saying you want to come to where i live and so on, you got me fucked up now

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

Ali just stop please. This is ridiculous. You can't force me to be with you or talk to you. You can't threaten me. Its just not right. You plant things in your own head. This is enough. Please go and live your life and let me be.

February 1

Buddyone Friend

am not forcing you or threatening you, the way you treated me is totally unfair, please type your words wisely

why did you go crazy on me last night?

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

Cause you wouldn't listen. This conversation is over. Please leave me alone. Goodbye.

February 1

Buddyone Friend

so its like that then ?

you want me start telling the truth to everyone then about who you really are?

February 1

Buddyone Friend

and what have you done to me?

how is your mom gona feel if i tell her the reason why i wanted the bag sent to charity was because you swore on her life that you were not talking to any other guys, what really was going on

February 1

Buddyone Friend

i want you to call the cops on me. so i can take you to trial, and publish your case in my website so when people google you they know who you really are? ok that's your last option should you decide to brush me off like that

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

What the hell is wrong with you? You can't take me to court. I've done nothing wrong. Look what you're doing now. You're harassing me. You're being completely unreasonable. What truth? That I was talking to Nasir WHICH you knew about. You're going to go to my mom and my dad and tell them what? That you're crazy and that you're determined to ruin my life. If you publish anything about me on your website I'll sue for libel and slander

February 1

Buddyone Friend

You sound ridiculous now,lol

Sweetheart you dont even know what you are saying. Right now you dont have enough against me for harassment,ok. Should you decide to brush me off then ill come to your work and embarass you in front of everyone and tell everyone how you have treated me. Then you can call the cops and arrest me for harassment or indirect assault. Once I am charged then ill take the matter to trial. Court is public documents therefore, these the case can be publishes publicly as they are the facts before the court. I will tell the judge what was the reason why this is happening and what I say will be recorded and scripted for public reference. So you cant even sue for nothing sweetheart. Cause you dont know how libel and slander operates in conjunction.

I have respect for your mom as she needs to know who really her daughter is.

Please take a step back and think what your gona say next because you can make things very ugly for yourself.

I just wanna know where we stand are you my friend or my enemy.

February 1

Buddyone Friend

Just in case for your references if the case goes to trial your lawyer who you have to pay $5000 will have to provide me your phone records and I will supeona every single guy you had contact with from the time I met you until the offence date. So these guys will come to court and testify to describe your character.

I am only letting you everything in advance cause I still care for you.

If you someone else I wouldnt give a. Shit about you. I only tell you right now cause I am still looking out for you Nargis.

February 1

Nargis Rasuli

What are you trying to prove? You can't take me to court. You have no grounds. How can you say that you care about me? Do you hear yourself? You sound absolutely insane.