Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2017-06-13

Court File No.: Newmarket 17-02439

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Chineye Onwubolu

Judgment

Evidence heard: June 13, 2017

Delivered orally: June 13, 2017

Counsel:

• Mr. R. DeChellis, counsel for the Crown
• Ms. C. Onwubolu, appearing on her own behalf

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

[1] The accused is charged with Criminal Harassment contrary to s. 264(3) arising out of an alleged harassment of a lead guitarist in the worship band at her church. Credibility is the central issue at trial in determining whether the Crown has proved the charge alleged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Evidence

[2] The complainant is the lead guitarist at his church. He does some work with the church administration and is well known in that community. One day he received a text from an unknown person who ended being the accused before the court. He said the accused texted him commenting favourably on the way he looked and asking to go out with him but he did not respond. One night he locked up the church late and was putting things in the back seat of his car when the accused walked over and got into the back of his car. She refused to leave and asked to go home with him. In the alternative she asked him to drive her to her car in the same parking lot. Eventually she got out and left when he threatened to call their Pastor.

[3] The complainant said there were two further incidents with the accused in the parking lot. In the first he was with a friend and when he manually opened the door to let the friend in the accused blocked the door and prevented it from closing. She refused to let them go. Again it was a threat to call the church Pastor that convinced her to leave. The third incident followed Sunday service when the accused approached the complainant and asked him why he didn't show her attention or hug her. He told her that would never happen. She asked to sit on his lap but he said no and that it wasn't appropriate. She blocked his vehicle and wouldn't move until the complainant referred to calling the Pastor and she relented.

[4] The accused told the complainant directly that God told her he was meant to be her husband. After the incidents with his car the complainant arranged a meeting with church pastors, the complainant and the accused. In those meetings the complainant told the accused directly that her attention and contact was unwanted. The pastors explained to her that the unwanted contact was inappropriate and must stop. If she did not stop they would be forced to call the police. There were several meetings between the accused and the pastors on this point. The accused persisted with messages and unwanted contact despite the interventions. The church security advisor also called the accused's father and asked him to come to the church to help explain the situation to his daughter. He also spoke to the accused's sister in that regard.

[5] After the meetings the accused would refrain from contact for a time but then resume as before. Her behaviour in the church became more troubling, she started coming up onto the stage at the end of the service holding up a bible or covering her head with her purse. She wandered about church property holding a bible and touching cars, the church walls and trees with the bible. The situation continued to the point where the church officials had to call the police. A trespass notice was served with the assistance of police. Despite police intervention and warnings the accused returned to the church several times in March. Police were called each time and the accused was taken from church property. On March 24th the police again attended to respond to yet another trespass complaint.

[6] Constable Mohammed spoke with the accused and tried to explain to her that she wasn't permitted to be on church property but she talked over him and wouldn't listen. She refused to acknowledge that she wasn't permitted to be there and she refused police direction to leave. She told the police that if she left she'd just come back to the next service Friday night. Further investigation including a statement from the complainant led to the charge before the court.

[7] Ms. Onwubolu testified. She admitted once being in the complainant's car but said that she was with a friend and she left after being asked although she didn't know the reason. She agreed the complainant told her at that time, "Chineye get out get out." She remembered that Pastor Micky tried to talk to her about the complainant. She agreed that the complainant told her directly he would never marry her. She disagreed that he ever directly told her to leave him alone. She did not obey the trespass notice because nobody ever gave her a reason why she could not be at the church. She feels she is the one who has been harassed by the church contacting the police and by church contact with her including religious messages she still receives in emails.

Analysis

[8] The complainant was a forthright witness who directly answered questions in examination-in-chief and cross-examination. He has never had any relationship with the accused and does not know her other than through her contact with him. His testimony was internally consistent and was consistent with the credible evidence of Mr. Paul Martino and PC Mohammed. The complainant was a credible witness.

[9] Mr. Martino is retired Toronto Police officer. He provided detailed evidence but was careful to note the parts of his evidence where he was uncertain such as reference to certain dates. He was responsive to questions put by the Crown and the accused and his evidence was consistent with the evidence of the other two Crown witnesses. Mr. Martino was a credible witness.

[10] Constable Mohammed was acting in a professional capacity at the time of his limited involvement. He gave detailed evidence and his responses to questions put by both parties show his memory is reliable. PC Mohammed was also a credible witness.

[11] The accused's testimony was rambling and hard to follow. With judicial assistance she was able to focus on points that were relevant to the trial and the charge before the court. She agreed with and confirmed certain points made by the complainant, but she denied much of the contact alleged. She could not explain the contact she did admit. She agreed that numerous persons told her to stop the unwanted contact with the complainant and later to stop unusual actions at the church but she insisted she was never given any reason.

[12] Her evidence was incomplete on important points showing her memory of the events in question is not reliable. She was not responsive to questions put in cross-examination. She often repeated the same answer that she was never given any reason about why she should stop bothering the complainant and stop attending the church. She talked over the Crown in the same manner described by the police officer, not listening to the questions put to her. Ms. Onwubolu was not a credible witness. Her evidence as a whole leaves significant concerns about the reliability of her testimony.

[13] I accept the credible evidence of the complainant, Mr. Martino and PC Mohammed. I find I cannot accept or place any weight on the accused's testimony.

[14] I find that the credible evidence proves that the accused was directly told and knew that the complainant was being harassed by her continued unwanted contact. The nature of the harassment and the persistence of the accused despite many interventions and warnings reasonably caused the complainant to fear for his safety and the safety of those around him. I can find no credible evidence that reasonably could leave a doubt in that regard.

Conclusion

[15] I find the Crown has proved the charge alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be a finding of guilt.

[16] I will mention at this point that I considered and monitored throughout the issue of fitness to stand trial. I'm satisfied that at all times the accused was able to understand the nature of the proceedings, the charge before the court and the possible consequences that might result. She participated in her trial and, with some assistance, was able to convey the evidence she wished to give. I find she had the required "limited cognitive capacity" required at all times.

Delivered: June 13, 2017

Hon. Justice J.F. Kenkel