Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-07-12

Court File No.: Central East - Newmarket 4911-998-17-10464

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Dustin Foreman

Before: Justice P.N. Bourque

Reasons for Judgment

Released on July 12, 2018

Counsel:

• V. Szirmak, for the Crown
• Dustin Foreman, Self-represented

BOURQUE J.:

Overview

[1] The defendant was found guilty on December 12, 2017 of several offences including assault, several breaches of recognizance, and two counts of criminal harassment. He was placed on probation, one of the salient terms being that he not contact the complainant in matters for which he was found guilty. It is alleged that between December 25 and December 27, 2017, he made contact with the same complainant. He faces three charges of breach of probation and a further count of criminal harassment.

[2] He acted on his own during the trial, and was in custody throughout. Filed as the first exhibit was the informations, the probation order arising from the December 12, 2017 court appearance, and the statutory notice.

Evidence

Paisley Bick

[3] …is a young woman who is employed in the child care and development field. She made contact with the defendant through a "dating app" and saw him several times in the summer of 2016. The defendant went to Vietnam for work and they maintained contact through social media and text messages. She went to see him in December, 2016 and sadly, on the first day of her visit, they were injured in a motor cycle accident. His injuries were severe and he had to be hospitalized for most of her visit. She stayed with him while he was in hospital and for two days after, he was discharged, when she returned home.

[4] The defendant came home and she saw him for several weekends later in January and early in February, 2017. He assaulted her in February, 2017 and she stated that she broke off the relationship. She states that after that, they would exchange messages but he would not take "no" for an answer. She stated that he would message her constantly and she became disturbed and had a conference call with him, her parents and his parents. She believed that he agreed that all messages would come through his mother but he began to contact her again.

[5] She believed that he was not in the right state of mind. While some of his messages expressed his love for her, some were "crude and rude".

[6] She stated that on Father's Day in June, 2017, he came up to her when she was at a convenience store near her home. She did not believe it was some sort of coincidence as he lived over an hour's drive away. Several days after this meeting, she went to the police. She also sent him a message that if he did not stop messaging her, she would go to the police. The messages did not stop. The repeated contact made her fearful. After charges were laid against him in June, 2017, the messages did not stop. Sometimes they were from fake Instagram accounts and she recognized the things he would talk about. Several times between June and December, 2017, she called the police and he was charged with new offences.

[7] Eventually in December 12, 2017, he pled guilty to two counts of criminal harassment, one count of assault, several counts of breach of recognizance. He was placed on probation with terms which included that he have no contact directly or indirectly with her.

[8] On the evening of December 25, 2017, she received a long (6 page) rambling email message from him. It contained many things (not specific threats) but it was disjointed enough that she became frightened that in that mental state, he was capable of doing something harmful to her and to her family and not realize what he was doing. She was so distraught by this that later that evening she attempted to slash her wrists with a knife. She went to the hospital and stayed overnight.

[9] The next day she received several text messages from him. She responded by "begging" him to leave her alone. He persisted. She eventually called his family phone number hoping to speak with his father. The defendant answered the phone and they spoke for about a minute. She stated that she told him again to leave her alone but he was not responding so she stopped the phone call.

[10] She stated that this email and text left her sad and frightened. She stated that he was continuing to make very poor choices and probably did not even realize how it was impacting other people.

[11] The email message of December 25th and the text messages of December 26th were filed as exhibits. The defendant did not object to their filing and in any event, I was satisfied that because of some of the peculiar references in them (the email included a picture of the defendant and the text message had a picture of his niece) that they were from the defendant.

[12] The email message in particular is a long and rambling testament to the fact that he was not prepared to leave her alone. He did not seem to accept that she did not want him to contact her.

[13] In cross-examination, she was taken through several texts and email messages (Exhibit 4) between September 29, 2016 and June 5, 2017. With regard to the message in 2016, it is not terribly relevant as it has expressions of love between them before the assault in February, 2017.

[14] With regard to the other messages just before, and then after the assault, it shows that there was an ambivalence shown by the witness. She clearly expresses hope that they can get back together but there are several instances where the witness states:

…what we have been through isn't something that be fixed over night. …I truly can't wait to see the man I fell in love with back to himself… (page 9)

…for you to even try and turn this around on me or make it like is was everyone's fault is so disgusting. …You're a selfish, entitled PIG. Don't ever talk to me again…(page 14)

I have spoken to your parents today. This has to end. We have both been through way to much. We are both too broken and damaged. I think that plan is to meet up and have a conversation in a safe place with your parents and my parents present. (page 22).

[15] While it is clear that she wrote words of affection to him after these exchanges, there does not appear to be any of this after June 12, 2017 which is the date that he met her at her car outside the variety store near her home. It was very soon after that date that she went to the police. The witness testified that she still got many, many messages from him and it is her un-contradicted statement that she did not communicate with him from that time till the phone call she made on December 26th or December 27, 2017.

[16] In that regard, all of these messages and contact before June 12, 2017 are of very little relevance to the issues that I have to decide. While the history between the defendant and complainant forms a backdrop, I must concentrate on the situation which existed on December 25th to December 27th in deciding her state of mind and specifically her state of fear.

[17] In cross-examination, there were several inconsistencies between her evidence and the statement made to the police. She said to the police that the phone call with the defendant after her leaving the hospital was about 6 minutes but in court she said it was no more than a minute. She told the police that because of her fear, she moved but she admitted in court that her parents had sold their home. She admitted that when she was on a dating app, she went to a spot where the defendant's information was and on at least one occasion "swiped" the tag saying she "showed interest". There was no follow up.

[18] She was cross-examined many times about whether she felt fear of the defendant at several points during the relationship. She admitted that many times she did not feel fear, but did not retreat from her assertion that the nature of his email message led her to believe that he was so unstable that she believed he was capable of harming her or a member of her family.

The Defence

[19] The defendant was self-represented. He called the following witnesses as part of his defence.

Bridget Glen

[20] ...is a York Regional Police Detective Constable. She was involved in the investigation of this matter. The defendant wished to examine her about the occurrence report that she drafted which opined that the defendant was a threat to the complainant. The defendant wished to pursue a discussion with her about whether her opinion had changed based on some of the evidence in this case. I explained to the defendant that this officer's opinion on this case was of no relevance to the issues that I had to decide.

Melissa Carty

[21] ...is a York Regional Police Detective Constable. She was assigned to this case on December 28, 2017. She was questioned about her statements on the bail hearing which he believes were untrue. I doubt this evidence is relevant. I will not comment on it further.

Gail Foreman

[22] ...is the mother of the defendant. She testified that the defendant had been through several difficult matters in the past 15 months. She described that the defendant had broken his leg in Vietnam, had lost his job there as a result, also could not participate in his normal athletics, and after his difficulties with the complainant, has several criminal convictions and is in jail. She described the many medical appointments he has attended and the fact he has been suffering depression. She referred to his many accomplishments. She stated that the defendant had suffered further injuries to his leg while in custody. She described several visits to the psychiatrist between December 12th and December 19th, and that the defendant was in "crisis" several times, once she felt the need to call the local police. She filed a resume of his accomplishments and a list of his medical results.

[23] She also testified that on December 27, 2017, she was present when the defendant was on the phone. She believed that the defendant was talking to the complainant, for some 4 to 7 minutes. She did not hear very much of the conversation. She said that she heard the defendant say that "I will send it to your Gmail". She spoke to the defendant after the call and she told him that she believed the complainant was trying to trap him. She also believed that the complainant called the defendant on June 18, 2017 and she believed they spoke for an hour. She also stated that she remembers the complainant saying at the end of the conference call that the complainant said that she would "call in a couple of months to see how he was doing".

[24] In cross-examination, she confirmed that in the June conference call, the complainant made it clear that she did not want any further contact from the defendant. However, she also said that there was a phone call after that between them. She admitted that the probation orders were clear that her son was to have no contact with her.

Don Foreman

[25] ...is the father of the defendant. He confirmed a lot of what his wife had testified to about his son's psychological issues and how they appeared to be peaking after his release from custody and sentencing on December 12, 2017. He believed that the email which his son sent to the complainant was consistent with how he was feeling at the time. He believed that it was a statement of what he had been through. He called it "mystic".

[26] He confirmed not only the desire by her not to have contact with his son, but the fact that she contacted him directly to ask him to tell his son not to have contact with her.

[27] Both of them spoke of "hang up calls" at this period of time. They have no idea of who it may have been. Neither do I, and I certainly do not think that it is any evidence that the complainant was calling the home.

Psychiatric Evidence

[28] The defendant wished to have three letters written by attending physicians including a psychiatrist during the period December 19th through December 21, 2017. They clearly show that this man was going through severe emotional issues. The most important thing to be taken from these exhibits is the "final diagnosis" contained in the letter of Dr. Guller, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C), dated December 22, 2018. It diagnoses the defendant as having major depressive disorder.

[29] The report specifically rules out Posttraumatic stress disorder, brief psychotic episode and "personality dysfunction with narcissistic traits".

[30] The report goes on to state that "he was in a psychotic state due to grandiose and erotomanic delusions, thought disorder and poor insight and judgment. I did not see evidence of mania. He denied any racing thoughts or pressured speech. He was fairly calm and composed when we were talking but he has been receiving p.r.n.'s which may have been masking some of the agitation that he presented with in Dr. Chawla's office". I do not think he is certifiable, as he is neither suicidal nor homicidal and is sufficiently rational to have adequate housing and food, and he continues to enjoy the support of his family."

Defendant Testimony

[31] The defendant read a statement in the witness box detailing (very little about the offences) a lot about his unhappiness as to how he had been treated and the fact that he felt that the complainant had been manipulated by the police and her family, and how the system had intruded on their relationship. He also spoke of his very emotional and mental state during the entry period with the complainant and especially the time from his release from jail in December 12, 2017 and the events of December 25 and 27, 2017. It was implicit in his testimony that he wrote the email and text messages of December 25th to 27th, 2017.

[32] The defendant was cross-examined. The defendant detailed his university education and his career as a pilot and a ski coach. It is clear that he is well educated and is very intelligent. The Crown specifically took him through the proceedings of his guilty plea on December 12, 2017. He acknowledged receiving a warning before his plea and understood that he could have had a trial. He acknowledged the plea. He acknowledged that he was given and signed the acknowledgement in the probation order. He understood the terms.

[33] Having recited the above, it must be noted that he still stated that he disputed the facts and that he remembered very little about what anyone said that day other than the comments by the judge, who seemed surprised that he was a pilot and further, that he believed the assault charge was "minimus". He believed he had not seen any disclosure other than the victim impact statement. He acknowledged that in that statement was the fact that the complainant did not want to have any contact with him. In fact, he essentially agreed that various things were done and also that he acknowledged he was under probationary terms to not contact the complainant. He however said that he did not understand why this was happening. He even acknowledged reading the victim impact statement of the complainant where she specifically stated that she did not want any further contact with him. He responded by saying that he did not believe she had written it as there were several factual errors in the statement and thus it could not have been her.

[34] When he was taken through his email message, he at first denied that he had written it for her but just for himself as some therapy. The Crown took him to his opening words where he said "Heyy.. Merry Xmas. Read this k? I need you to not disclose this to plz for my family's sake". He eventually agreed he put those things in the message but probably did so after he had originally composed the message while he was in jail.

[35] The Crown also took him through his series of text messages. He admitted sending them but denied sending it to her before the conversation of December 27, 2018. The witness was taken to the two reply messages from her, the first ending in the words "Leave me alone!!!" and the second ending with "Your breaking your probation by contacting me. So please stop I'm begging you."

[36] He responded by saying the first message was not clear as she referred initially to her attempted suicide as a "cry for help" and in response to the second message, he was adamant that he did stop messaging her notwithstanding he did send her a further two messages.

Analysis

Reasonable Doubt

[37] The Crown bears the burden at all times of proving the essential averments of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. As set out in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320:

Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice: Rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;

It is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;

It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty, it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and

More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty - a (Judge) jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

[38] The defendant has led evidence and has testified. I must also consider R. v. W.D. (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) at page 409:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit

Secondly, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in a reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Thirdly, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, in the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

Findings of Fact

[39] With regard to the evidence of the defendant, I find that he was not a reliable witness. As I will note below, he stated that when he entered pleas of guilty to the offences in December 2012, he misled the court. He was argumentative with counsel and was evasive in making obvious admissions. His instance that he did not write the email to the complainant but only as a means of therapy to himself is obviously false as there are significant direct statements to her in the note.

[40] I do not accept the general thrust of his evidence that there was any confusion in her wish as of December 25th 2017 to have no further contact with him and I also do not accept his assertion that at that time he was in such mental distress that he could not have formed any mens rea. I will deal with this further below.

[41] Having rejected his evidence, I find that for all of the reasons set out below, I am not left in a reasonable doubt, by his evidence.

[42] With regard to the essential sequence of events and indeed the events which are relevant to the issues that I must decide, I accept the evidence of the complainant. While there were some discrepancies in her testimony, most were of a minor nature (e.g. The time of the phone call with the defendant on December 27, 2017). I find that much of her testimony of the events of their relationship are largely confirmed by the guilty pleas entered by the defendant on December 12, 2017.

[43] I find that after the assault in the middle of February, 2017, the complainant was leery of being in contact with the defendant but had not completely broken off communication and I accept that she felt that while he was in Vietnam, she was content to maintain the communication, and perhaps even allowing for a future reconciliation.

[44] I find however that the events of June 7, 2017 (the meeting in the parking lot) led her to attend the police shortly thereafter. I find that in the conference call of June 17, 2017, she made it clear that she did not want further contact (this was confirmed by the defendant's parents) even though she left open the possibility of contact in the future. I do not find that a visit to a dating app, and a "swipe on his name" as any type of contact.

[45] I find that the laying of the charges and the conference call and ultimately the attendance in court on December 12, 2017 were all (singularly and jointly) an unmistakable communication to the defendant that he was to not contact this person in any way.

[46] I accept her total recitation of the events of the evening of December 25th up to December 27. I do not believe that it is necessary that I make a finding of fact as to what caused her to attempt to slash her wrists. She admits that there were other things in her life. She admits that she may not have read the email at that point.

[47] I do accept that she received unsolicited text messages form the defendant on the 26th or 27th. She clearly read them as she responded to them. I believe her responses are the greatest indicator of her mental state.

[48] She responds to his first message: "I just got home from the hospital last night because I tried to kill my self. Leave me alone!!!"

[49] She responds to a second message: "You did this! Your breaking your probation by contacting me. So please stop I'm begging you."

[50] It is in my opinion a significant statement of the self-delusion of the defendant when he sends another message to her and includes: "I hear you. And I will if that's what you truly want. But u have to understand I never heard that direct from you."

Breach of Probation

[51] With regard to counts 2 and 3, the analysis is very simple. The defendant was on a probation order from December 12, 2017 which specified that "Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with: Paisley Bick, or any member of her immediate family".

[52] Exhibit 2 is an email message sent from the defendant to the Paisley Bick. That email was received on December 25, 2017. While there is some dispute whether she read it before or after her suicide attempt there was evidence she received it and did read it. That makes out the actus reus of the offence of the breach of probation.

[53] Exhibit 3 is a series of text messages sent by the defendant to Paisley Bick. That she received it is confirmed by her evidence and the fact that she returned his messages with entreaties to him to stop. This makes out the actus reus offence of breach of probation as set out in the third count.

[54] I will deal with the element of mens rea for all of the offences further in my judgment.

Criminal Harassment

[55] With regard to count 1, the charge of criminal harassment requires more than just the proof that the messages were sent.

[56] The offence reads as follows:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(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.

Harassed

[57] The definition of "harassed" is set out in R. v. Dordrostami (2000), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 488 and it exists where as a consequence of the prohibited act, the complainant was in a state of being harassed or felt harassed in the sense of feeling tormented, troubled, worried continually r chronically plagued, bedeviled and badgered. There is a plethora of evidence (most of which I have referred to above) which would lead any trier of fact to the inescapable conclusion that this woman wanted to be left alone by this defendant. She may indeed still have had feelings for him but by December 12, 2017 they were minimal and her overriding concern was for him to leave her alone. All of her actions confirm that this is a complainant who was significantly harassed by the communications from this defendant.

Repeatedly communicating with the complainant

[58] In the circumstances of this case, I believe it is made out that the defendant communicated with the complainant on at least two occasions, being the email message and the text message the next day. That part of the offence is made out.

Without lawful authority and knowing that the person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed

[59] In this case, the defendant was under a court order not to contact or communicate with the complainant in any manner. That would rob him of any vestige of lawful authority. It matters not that he may believe in his own mind that she may want contact. The question remains as to whether he knew that she would be harassed by his conduct. Without going into the total history of this matter, I find that the following factors satisfy me that the defendant was at least reckless:

(i) There had been no real contact directly between the parties since the day of the conference call in June, 2017 and the subsequent laying of charges against the defendant;

(ii) The charges had proceeded, and the defendant accepted that on at least two occasions in 2017 he had indeed already "harassed her; and,

(iii) Lastly, the tenor and tone of the email message. I do not disagree with a characterization of the message from the defendant's father that it was his son's statement of how he had been wronged. However, to the recipient her characterization of it as a product of someone who was disturbed and perhaps capable of doing anything is in my opinion the way it would have been received by her. I quote some parts of the text:

"What is this thing that is coming right back at us" (page 2, para. 2)

"I always felt I had something else guiding me. And I could always hear it loudly. But it's been missing lately. And then I realized you didn't want this.. I did. I had to show you I would take on the whole fucking shit house for you. Bring the whole fucking thing down if I had to. I needed a battleground. Bc I'm a fuckingg warrior…that it's not the fucking law that needs to protect you from me, it's not some meek detective in a cheap 1980's suit that has the nerve to enter into my childhood room. B/c I'd take on all of it. I'd take on everything, if you asked it of me. Because I'm a fucking warrriorrr". (page 2 para 4)

[60] I have reviewed the many text and email messages put in evidence in this matter. This message is much different and potentially menacing. Subject to the comments I will make below, this appears to be sufficient evidence for me to conclude that even if the defendant did not intentionally set out to harass the complainant, he was clearly reckless in his actions.

Did these actions of the defendant cause that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them?

[61] The defendant fought vigorously the evidence of the complainant when she stated that this message led her to have a fear for her safety and the safety of her family because she believed that the receipt of this message in these circumstances and it's content (some of which I have already quoted) made her believe that he was so unstable that he could harm her or her family.

[62] I have already stated that I accept the bulk of her evidence. I found her to be a credible witness. The minor discrepancies in her testimony do not dissuade me. I will deal with the following other issues that the defendant says points to the fact that she did not really have fear.

(a) The complainant called the defendant's home on the 27th. The defendant answered the phone and I find they spoke for several minutes. I accept her version of the conversation. I believe that she was originally trying to speak to the defendant's father (she had spoken to him at least once before to ask him to urge his son not to contact her). There was nothing in that conversation that would lead any reasonable person to believe that she somehow was expressing any interest to see the defendant or continue any relationship. Her recent response to his text message was a plea to have him leave her alone. The issue of whether the defendant wanted to send the email message was, in my opinion a self-serving statement on his behalf. In total this phone call does not impinge on her assertion that she felt fear because of the email message;

(b) The defendant points to the messages alternating between affection and unhappiness with the defendant when he was in Vietnam in March and April, 2017. He states that this shows her inconsistent nature and the fact (as expressed by his father in his evidence) that she was somehow leading him on and despite her stated wish to have no contact, she really still wanted contact. It is unnecessary for me to decide the effect of all of the messages in March and April. Much had happened since June of 2017, the net effect, in my opinion was to leave no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that this complainant did not was to have further communication from this defendant. This comment applies to any allegations of some phone call in June 2017 and indeed any viewing of the defendant's page on the dating app;

(c) The defendant asserts that the witness was somehow manipulated by the police to give this evidence when she did not believe it. There is absolutely no evidence that the police attempted to manipulate the complainant. What any officer may have said in bail hearing about their beliefs about the defendant does not qualify in any way as evidence of manipulation. Any officer's personal opinion also does not assist the defendant in this assertion; and,

(d) The defendant asserts that the evidence of the attempted suicide does not show that it was attributable to his message. I agree. I think that the complainant in her evidence essentially agreed that there were lots of issues which led to her feelings that evening. In any event I have already decided that it is not central to her assertion of fear and I make no finding as to the causes of her attempt to cut herself.

[63] Having accepted her assertion that she did feel some fear from the defendant's email message, and such fear was objectively reasonable, this element of the offence is made out.

[64] I find that the actus reus of the offence of criminal harassment has been made out, it only leaves an analysis of the mens rea of the defendant.

Mens Rea

[65] The defendant asserts that as a result of the significant physical and emotional suffering he had been under as a result of the (total of 108) days in custody and the severe depression he was under (I have already quoted the report of Dr. Guller), I should have a reasonable doubt as to mens rea of the defendant. For the following reasons, I find that I do not have a reasonable doubt but that the defendant intended to carry out the acts as set out above. His possible lack of insight into the effects on him of his actions do not detract from the fact that he intended to send to the complainant the 6 page email message, contrary to the provisions of his probation order, and being reckless as to whether or not the complainant would be harassed. It is not an element of the offence that he was aware that she would be fearful as a result. The fact that she was fearful and her fears were objectively justified is all that is required.

[66] The defendant also raised the issue that because of the contacts referred to in June 2017 and the Swiping of his page on the dating app sometimes afterwards, that created the impression in his mind that she still wished contact, and thus not only was she not afraid, but he could not have the mens rea to seek to harass her. I find that assertion to be not supported by the evidence. As I have already stated, there is ample evidence that the complainant told the defendant (through his father – and indeed through the legal proceedings which resulted in the convictions on December 12, 2017), that she did not wish to have contact.

[67] I also note that the defendant was very loath to admit that the email message was sent on December 25th and further he would not admit the date of the sending of the text messages. He appeared to want this court to believe that the messages happened after the phone conversation of December 27th or 28th. He was asserting that she asked him to send these messages. I specifically find that she did not such thing and in any event would not excuse him in any for sending them or indeed their effect upon her.

[68] I must comment on the general tenor of the defendant. He was intelligent and thoughtful about many matters. He was able to review the information and was able to make submissions and indeed cross examine witnesses as well as any self-represented litigant. He however would clearly attempt to pick up on any information which indicated that the complainant wished to have contact with him and minimize to the point of absurdity any information which contradicted this. To him it made no difference that the complainant laid charges against him, needed parents to intervene in a conference call, told the court that she wanted no contact and told him in two text messages asked him to leave her alone. He ignored all of this in his unflinching belief that she still wished to have contact with him.

[69] He does not appear to have lost his belief that this is all some sort of misunderstanding and she will return to him. He retreated to the statement that he was confused and in distress when the Crown pointed out to him the several references in his email which clearly indicated that he knew he was taking a serious risk in contacting her with that email. The evidence clearly establishes in this case that the defendant was not under such a state of anxiety or depression or distress or trauma that he did not realize that in sending the email of December 25, 2017 he was not only breaching a court order, but he was doing so against the stated wishes of the complainant.

[70] Having found mens rea proven beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the offence of criminal harassment, I also, for essentially the same reasons am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to send this series of text messages to the complainant, with full knowledge that he was breaching the terms of his probation.

Conclusion

[71] I find the defendant guilty of the two breaches of probation (counts 2 and 3), a single count of criminal harassment (count 1), and a final count of breach of probation (count 4), wherein the criminal harassment breached the term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Released: July 12, 2018

Signed: "Justice P.N. Bourque"