Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 3, 2020

Court File No.: Newmarket 4911-998-19-02625K

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Ryan Fields

Before: Justice Edward Prutschi

Heard on: August 25-28, 31 and September 1

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 3, 2020

Counsel

Jeffrey Costain — counsel for the Crown

P. Chmiel and M. Kamel — counsel for the defendant Ryan Fields

Judgment

PRUTSCHI J.:

Introduction

[1] Ryan Fields initially faced 14 criminal charges on two separate informations arising out of the sudden dissolution of his intimate relationship with Joanna Chiro. At trial, the Crown chose to proceed on six counts though early in the case, withdrew two counts of possession of cocaine, in light of a recent change in policy by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC).

[2] At the conclusion of the Crown's case, I was invited to dismiss the charge of forcible confinement while amending the offence date for the charge of assault with a weapon. During submissions, the Crown further invited me to dismiss a charge alleging criminal harassment on or about March 18, 2019 and I do so now. Thus, the only charges remaining for me to address are a count alleging assault with a weapon via a thrown bar stool on March 14, 2019 and a count alleging criminal harassment by virtue of repeated communications on March 29-30, 2019.

[3] For the reasons set out below I find Mr. Fields not guilty of these offences.

The Facts

[4] The complainant, Joanna Chiro, met Mr. Fields when they were both in their 20s while working at a Mississauga nightclub. They were involved romantically for roughly a year in the mid-2000s before rekindling that relationship in 2018. By this time, Ms. Chiro was employed as a police officer with Peel Regional Police and Mr. Fields was the co-founder of Great Canadian Construction ("GCC"), a commercial construction company. The relationship abruptly ended in March 2019 over the allegations now before this court.

[5] Ms. Chiro described a largely positive relationship with Mr. Fields which only began to deteriorate in the late winter of 2018 and spring of 2019 when she claimed Mr. Fields would increasingly turn to alcohol and disappear for days at a time. The two never lived together, maintained the busy activities of their daily work lives, but communicated regularly by various messaging services including iPhone text messages, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger.

[6] On March 14, 2019, they had plans to share dinner together at Mr. Fields' home. The evening progressed in a normal and pleasant fashion when "like a light switch" Mr. Fields' demeanour changed. Ms. Chiro was clearing dishes from the kitchen island when Mr. Fields began accusing her of ruining the evening. He "shot up" from the couch and said, "you fuck everything up", flinging some glassware to the floor. Mr. Fields then picked up a bar stool and threw it in Ms. Chiro's direction striking her ankle. She questioned whether the throw was directed at her which Mr. Fields denied.

[7] Ms. Chiro began searching for her keys intending to leave when she noticed Mr. Fields had armed himself with a gun which he was tapping at his side and at his temple. She described the weapon as a revolver with a long silver barrel and wooden hand grip. Ms. Chiro said, "please don't hurt me" and again, "like a switch", Mr. Fields' demeanour changed, saying "I'd never hurt you, just myself" and he exited the room up the stairs.

[8] Ms. Chiro followed him up the stairs and found him on the floor of the bedroom in the throes of an anxiety attack. She succeeded in calming him down at which point he consumed a bottle of vodka and what she believed was a baggie of cocaine. The gun was nowhere to be found and indeed, despite the later execution of search warrants on Mr. Fields' home and truck, was never recovered. Ms. Chiro spent a sleepless night with Mr. Fields and they parted ways uneventfully in the morning.

[9] I pause here to reflect on a curious coincidence related to the firearm Ms. Chiro alleges Mr. Fields brandished. In cross-examination, Ms. Chiro was presented with pictures of herself firing a seemingly identical gun to the one she described being in the hands of Mr. Fields. While not entirely unique, the gun in the photos is clearly a revolver with an extended silver barrel and a wooden grip. Subsequent search warrants uncovered a firearm but one that no reasonable person – least of all a trained police officer – could possibly confuse with the revolver. The Crown did not proceed on any firearms-related charges in this trial.

[10] Mr. Fields' recollection of these events is entirely different. He testified that nothing untoward happened on March 14 and noted that Ms. Chiro's original report to police claimed these allegations occurred on March 18 – a date which subsequent records proved impossible as Ms. Chiro was working a night shift for Peel Police that evening.

[11] Ms. Chiro was adamant that she had corrected her initial date error the day after her interview with police, reporting it to either D.C. Styles or police officer Kember. Officer Kember was present throughout the totality of the trial in his capacity as the Officer-In-Charge. He did not testify. D.C. Styles did testify, indicating that a change in the offence date would be something he considered important to note and that he would have recorded that if Ms. Chiro had advised him of it. He made no such note and has no recollection of any revision to the alleged offence date. This is the first of several credibility hurdles inherent in Ms. Chiro's evidence.

[12] In any event, Mr. Fields asserted that he had never been in possession of any gun, had never been suicidal or suffered from anxiety attacks, and had never thrown anything at Ms. Chiro. He recalled a date in late December of 2018 in which, during a minor verbal argument with her, he had knocked over a barstool when speaking in an animated way with his hands. The stool never made contact with Ms. Chiro and the argument ended without incident.

[13] In the two weeks following March 14, the pair communicated regularly and lovingly by text message and met in person on one or two occasions without incident. In late March, the couple acquired a puppy. Ms. Chiro claimed to have paid for the dog which was to be a mutual pet, noting that her name was only left off the registration documents because Mr. Fields claimed there was insufficient room on the form to include her there. Mr. Fields asserted the puppy was always to be his alone and that he paid the $2000 purchase price himself in cash though he conceded that Ms. Chiro loaned him a portion of the money required to pay some early veterinary fees.

[14] On March 29, Ms. Chiro agreed to assist Mr. Fields with a work-related issue. A former employee, John Shore, had failed to relinquish possession of some company property, most notably a Great Canadian Construction truck. Mr. Fields and Ms. Chiro attended together at John Shore's home in an effort to recover the truck. Shore was not home but his father answered the door in a belligerent manner threatening to call the police on them. Ms. Chiro claimed that Mr. Fields then identified her as a police officer which "puts me on duty and muddies the waters" whereas, according to Mr. Fields, Ms. Chiro voluntarily "flashed her badge" telling Shore's father that "I am the police".

[15] Having failed to recover the company truck, they decided to attend at a police station to report it stolen after which they returned to Mr. Fields' home, stopping along the way to pick up the puppy who was being discharged from the veterinary hospital. According to Ms. Chiro, Mr. Fields began to express anger at their failure to recover the vehicle, assigning blame to her. Mr. Fields then received a call from police to return to the station. He departed leaving Ms. Chiro alone at his home with the dog.

[16] At the police station, Mr. Fields became frustrated when he was made to wait only to learn that police had recovered keys to the vehicle but not the truck itself. He was advised to locate the truck on his own which was purportedly parked at a nearby GO station. Mr. Fields communicated some of this frustration via text message to Ms. Chiro who believed that Mr. Fields had become angrily unhinged and was blaming her for the days' events. Fearful of what he might do when he returned home, Ms. Chiro packed up the dog and took Mr. Fields' Ford Explorer to police where she reported the prior alleged bar stool assault.

[17] Mr. Fields returned home to find his puppy and vehicle missing. He began to repeatedly communicate with Ms. Chiro texting, messaging and calling her dozens of times over a roughly twelve-hour period before his eventual arrest. These attempts included calls made by Mr. Fields' mother and brother, who had a cordial relationship with Ms. Chiro, as well as several attempted calls from the cell phone of a friend of Mr. Fields.

The Text Messages & Call Logs

[18] With both Ms. Chiro and Mr. Fields leading busy lives and living separately from each other, a primary mode of communication for them was the use of text messaging. Extensive call logs and messages were introduced at trial.

[19] When confronted by texts in cross-examination, which appeared to undermine Ms. Chiro's version of events, she noted fairly that text messages are but a snapshot and do not necessarily accurately reflect the totality of a given time period. I agree that text messages must be treated with caution and should not be read as presumptively representative of the totality of a given moment. Having said that, the volume and frequency of the messages in this case are so substantial as to morph from the proverbial snapshot to being more akin to a flipbook. At times, each text falls so closely on the heels of the preceding one that a full reading of the text messages leaves diminishing opportunity for misapprehension or misinterpretation of what might have happened in the interstitial moments between texts.

[20] The texts from March 14 – the day of the alleged bar stool incident – are replete with benign loving communications and explicit references to Ms. Chiro's expectations of a pleasant intimate evening. There is no reference whatsoever to violence or distress of any kind.

[21] This pattern continues uninterrupted following the alleged bar stool assault and for the next two weeks through to the incident with John Shore on March 29. The morning of March 15 sees Ms. Chiro text Mr. Fields on numerous occasions wishing him well, describing her day, and even sending him – unprompted – an intimate photo of herself along with some sexually explicit commentary.

[22] I am cognizant of the caution required to be exercised in making assumptions based on stereotypical myths about how a female victim of violence is 'supposed' to act in the hours and days following her victimization. The psychology of domestic violence is highly complex and the myths about how a woman is expected to act, particularly as it relates to delayed reporting of offences, are precisely that – myths. This calculus does not change in my mind simply because Ms. Chiro is a police officer. Indeed, the trauma and perceived humiliation of reporting allegations to persons who would otherwise be her colleagues is a heavy emotional burden not carried by the average civilian complainant. Thus, while the text messages assist in my assessment of the case, I ascribe to them somewhat limited weight and approach them with a necessary note of caution. I draw no inference whatsoever from the delayed reporting of the March 14 allegation.

[23] Ms. Chiro was cross-examined exhaustively on each and every text from March 14 – 29 and agreed that the messages display not a hint of fear or trouble in her relationship with Mr. Fields. The two frequently exchanged loving words and her texts were sprinkled with heart emojis and playful GIFS sent, unprompted, to Mr. Fields. That playful tone changed significantly on March 29 following the confrontation at John Shore's home.

[24] On March 28 the two exchanged texts in preparation for the visit to John Shore. Ms. Chiro confirmed where Shore lived, acquired details from Mr. Fields as to efforts he'd made to secure the return of the truck, and asked Mr. Fields whether he wanted Shore criminally charged or was simply seeking return of the vehicle. Ms. Chiro suggested that Shore had committed theft and possibly extortion, questioning, "is he really that stupid???" and warning that "He's going to get angry joanna".

[25] It was suggested to Ms. Chiro in cross-examination that her self-reference to "angry joanna" was an indication that she was going to take charge of recovering the truck from John Shore and flex her police muscle to ensure that happened. Ms. Chiro denied this claiming that "angry Joanna" was instead a reference to her own discomfort due to the fact that Mr. Fields "put me on duty" by referring to her as a police officer at Mr. Shore's doorstep.

[26] This explanation of Ms. Chiro is entirely implausible. The "angry Joanna" text message was sent by Ms. Chiro at 8:28pm[1] on March 28. It is apparent from subsequent texts that this message was sent before departing to confront Mr. Shore. Ms. Chiro's evasiveness on this point is damaging to her credibility and suggestive that she later voluntarily identified herself as a police officer at Mr. Shore's doorstep.

[27] As Mr. Fields arrived at the police station to report the stolen truck, he texted Ms. Chiro, "Well I'm here so time to flip my lid." Ms. Chiro advised him that police simply need to get details from him, but Mr. Fields responded with complaints about the delay. Ms. Chiro appeared sympathetic to his frustrations texting him at 7:23pm that, "I would be frustrated too".

[28] The texts take a turn for the worse when Mr. Fields returned home from the police station only to find that Ms. Chiro had left and taken the dog and his Ford Explorer with her. Mr. Fields fired off a series of texts between 8:13pm and 9:25pm that included the following:

• "You've got to be kidding me right now"
• "Hi [sic] dare you"
• "Now I'm angry now you've fucked up"
• "You're not going to like what happens next. Lawyer up"
• "I'm going to the police station"
• "I suggest you answer"
• "I'm going to York region and registering the explorer as stolen and you can deal with it"
• "You broke my heart"
• "You are so unfair and you know I'm losing my mind"

[29] Ms. Chiro made no response to these texts as she was already at the police station reporting the bar stool assault though Mr. Fields was unaware of that at the time. After a quiet interlude, Mr. Fields resumed texting from 12:11am to 12:18am on March 30.

• "At least tell me why"
• "I deserve that"
• "See you soon! I'm on my way over"
• "Stop ignoring my calls"
• "Why are you doing this to me????"

[30] Another textual interlude took place until Mr. Fields resumed contact at 7:00am.

• "Fuck it"
• "I can't go forward so please just tell my mom and brothers I love them"
• "Doing what needs to be done"
• "I love you"
• "Please I'm begging say goodbye to me"

[31] At 7:06am Ms. Chiro responded for the first time texting, "Where are you?". She testified that all her responses were at the explicit direction of police officers who wanted her to engage Mr. Fields in an effort to locate and arrest him. Mr. Fields was of course unaware of any police involvement at this point and he continued texting from 7:07am to 7:10am.

• "Why won't you talk to me??"
• "What did I do?"
• "Please"
• "OK don't worry about it"
• "Take care of Titan" [the puppy]
• "I love him and you very much"
• "Goodbye Asia" ["Asia" being a nickname for Ms. Chiro]
• "I can't do it…you destroyed me. I'm not home so don't worry about it just please let everyone know"
• "I love you so much always have and always will"
• "Goodbye. I guess I wasn't worth it"

[32] Ms. Chiro responded a second time at 7:17am asking, "Where are you?". Mr. Fields did not reply to that inquiry and at 7:54am Ms. Chiro texted again, "Please just tell me where you are" and attached a photo of the puppy texting, "Come see the dog". There was still no text response from Mr. Fields and Ms. Chiro sent another picture of the dog at 8:22am. Mr. Fields engaged again texting at 8:37am, "You broke my heart" and "You let ppl listen when I'm pouring my heart out".

[33] By this point Ms. Chiro had answered one of Mr. Fields' many FaceTime video calls. During that call Mr. Fields testified that he saw and heard police in the background, hence the reference to 'letting people listen'. Ms. Chiro again texted Mr. Fields at 8:37am asking, "Where are you?" to which he responded in a series of texts, "You hurt me more than anyone has ever hurt me in my entire life. I never thought you were like that. I trusted you…you betrayed me."

[34] Ms. Chiro responded, "I didn't betray you", and Mr. Fields accused her of lying. He asked her to FaceTime him, indicating "I'm passing out" to which Ms. Chiro nonchalantly texted, "Just putting Titan in the crate. Had to take him for a pee." Mr. Fields then sent another flurry of texts until, at 8:51am, Ms. Chiro advised him, "Just getting out of the shower" to which Mr. Fields reacted incredulously, "You decided to shower??". Ms. Chiro explained, "Titan peed on me".

[35] Ms. Chiro and Mr. Fields then engaged in a back-and-forth series of texts until 9:09am where Mr. Fields spent the next hour regularly trying to elicit a response from Ms. Chiro with texts including the following:

• "Don't worry about calling me back"
• "I won't be able to answer"
• "Just at least say goodbye fuck"
• "Let me say bye to Titan please"
• "I'm hurting so badly"
• "please if you actually love me answer please"
• "I'm begging you"
• "baby I'm begging you"
• "I'm scared"
• "I think I'm overdosing"
• "My mother is on her way to your house"
• "I'm reaching out to you for help…Please talk to me"
• "Guess I'm getting arrested not that you care"

[36] At 10:32am Mr. Fields asked, "You block me?" to which Ms. Chiro responded, "No". This was followed by a further flurry of texts from Mr. Fields that concluded between 10:41am and 10:49am:

• "I'm coming there to turn myself in"
• "You could have just told me you called the police on me"
• "I wish you had told me you didn't want to be with me any more that's all"
• "I do love you! I always have and always did. It hurts beyond words you decided to do this which will ruin my life. But I guess you felt this was needed. Goodbye Asia, I do love you. And never meant for any of this to happen"

[37] Mr. Fields testified that none of his texts were indicative of suicidal ideation or self-harm. References to "goodbye" and asking Ms. Chiro to tell his family he loved them were said because he had decided to cool off by leaving town for a period of time as he often did if he felt overwhelmed by life's circumstances. References to "passing out" he explained were simply due to exhaustion after a long day and sleepless night while the explicit reference to "overdosing" was just an attempt "to get her to answer".

[38] A clear reading of the texts strongly suggests Mr. Fields lacks credibility on this point. I find as a fact that his words were calculated to elicit a response from Ms. Chiro who had been largely ignoring him throughout his calls, texts, and messages and, whether he genuinely contemplated suicide or not, he intended to suggest as much to Ms. Chiro.

[39] In addition to the text messages outlined thus far, cell phone calls logs indicated a steady stream of unanswered calls placed to Ms. Chiro's phone between 7:00am-10:36am. The majority of these were voice calls from an unknown caller ID, though a significant portion were noted as coming from Ryan Fields with the occasional call from his brother, Trevor Fields. While most were voice calls, WhatsApp and FaceTime video calls were also attempted.

Position of the Parties

[40] The defence argues that the text messages, when read carefully and collectively, demonstrate conclusively that Ms. Chiro and Mr. Fields were in an entirely unremarkable positive relationship until the events at John Shore's home. Ms. Chiro's decision to unleash 'angry joanna' and abuse her authority as a police officer by "flashing her badge" led to a professional complaint against her and the commencement of an internal police investigation which culminated in a nine-month professional suspension. This suspension began on Monday, April 1, only two days after she reported the allegations against Mr. Fields to police. It was concern regarding the consequences of her conduct with John Shore that was the catalyst for the sudden and false allegations.

[41] The defence hypothesis is augmented by Ms. Chiro's subsequent attempts to acquire information about the case against Mr. Fields. In cross-examination it was suggested to Ms. Chiro that she sought information about Mr. Fields' case as her Inspector was requesting this as part of the investigation into her conduct as a police officer. She vehemently denied this suggestion, agreeing with defence counsel's assertion that she was "100% sure, 1000% sure" that she never sought this information.

[42] However, D.C. Styles testified that on March 31, Ms. Chiro contacted him by phone inquiring about exactly such investigative details. D.C. Styles noted that this request raised many ethical issues and concluded that "it would be inappropriate for me to feed information even to the victim on specific details". Ms. Chiro's attempt to acquire such information, and her testimonial denial that she even made such an attempt, are highly problematic for her credibility.

[43] The defence posits that the numerous attempts to communicate with Ms. Chiro on March 29 and 30 were a reasonable and understandable response to Mr. Fields' belief that Ms. Chiro had stolen his puppy and Ford Explorer. Mr. Fields was acting within his lawful authority in initiating these communications. Ms. Chiro was responding from time to time by text, phone, WhatsApp or FaceTime, and never communicated any request for Mr. Fields to discontinue his contact right up until the moment he was arrested. Thus, either Ms. Chiro was not herself genuinely harassed, or Mr. Fields could not have known she was feeling harassed, or her sense of fear and harassment were not objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances.

[44] The Crown contends that Mr. Fields engaged in deeply disturbing behaviour on March 14 both in throwing the bar stool at Ms. Chiro and in brandishing a firearm. The memory of these events is the contextual backdrop forefront in Ms. Chiro's mind when she is receiving the litany of text messages and other communications on March 29-30. Collectively, these communications created a state of fear and control over Ms. Chiro. Mr. Fields knew that his repeated communication would instill such fear in her and that fear was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The Law

Assessing Credibility

[45] Mr. Fields testified in his own defence denying ever intentionally throwing a barstool at Ms. Chiro and further denying that he harassed her. I therefore must instruct myself with respect to the approach mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

[46] If I believe the evidence of Mr. Fields, I must acquit. If I do not believe Mr. Fields, but am left in reasonable doubt by his testimony, I must acquit. Even if I do not believe Mr. Fields and am not left in reasonable doubt by his evidence, I must acquit, unless, on the basis of evidence that I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

[47] I may accept some, all or none of each witness' testimony and, in applying WD to the evidence in this trial, I have considered the defence evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole and have applied this test in making my credibility findings throughout this case.

Assault with a Weapon

[48] The evidence as it relates to the alleged thrown bar stool is such that it is unnecessary to embark on a detailed credibility assessment to legally resolve the issue.

[49] Leaving aside Mr. Fields' claim that this incident involved nothing more than an accidentally over-turned bar stool some time in December of 2018, Ms. Chiro's evidence on this point explicitly acknowledges the failure of the Crown to prove the mens rea component of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[50] During her examination in-chief, Ms. Chiro noted that the stool was thrown by Mr. Fields in anger, nicking her ankle. She asked Mr. Fields, "Did you throw that at me?" and he responded that he did not. It is apparent that Ms. Chiro did not believe his denial.

[51] I acknowledge the Crown's submission that this took place in a small, somewhat confined, space and that I should be cognizant of the general proposition that people intend the natural consequences of their actions. However, Ms. Chiro was quite fair in her own assessment offering, "Can I say with certainty whether he threw it purposely in my direction? I can't say that."

[52] Certainty is not identical to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt however, in all of the circumstances, I am left in some doubt as to whether Mr. Fields hurled a bar stool at Ms. Chiro on March 14. Even if I were to conclude that the stool was indeed thrown, I am left in doubt as to whether such action was intentionally targeted at Ms. Chiro. Mr. Fields is therefore found not guilty of the offence of assault with a weapon.

Criminal Harassment

[53] The five-part test to assess a criminal harassment case is well settled and the Crown bears the burden at all times to prove each step beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the accused has engaged in any of the prohibited conduct set out in s. 264(2) and did so in the absence of any lawful authority. In this case, the Information has particularized criminal harassment on or about March 29, 2019 by engaging in "repeated communications" contrary to s. 264(2)(b).

2. That the complainant was harassed (which has been variously defined as "tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered" See R. v. Kosikar, [1999] O.J. No. 3569. These descriptors are not cumulative and the existence of any one is synonymous with "harassment" R. v. Kordrostami (2000), 143 CCC (3d) 388 (ON CA)).

3. That the accused actually KNEW the complainant was harassed OR knew there was a RISK that his conduct would cause the complainant to be harassed OR was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed.

4. That the conduct of the accused caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and,

5. That the complainant's fear was objectively reasonable in all the circumstances

[54] Counsel for Mr. Fields urged me to end the legal inquiry at the very first stage arguing that Mr. Fields' campaign of messages and calls was protected by his lawful authority to seek recovery of his dog and truck, both of which he believed had been stolen by Ms. Chiro. I decline to rule on whether self-help efforts to recover purportedly stolen property would meet the definition of "lawful authority", thus insulating someone from liability for criminal harassment.

[55] Instead I adopt the reasoning of Durno J. in R. v. Vandoodewaard, 2009 O.J. No. 5099 (ON SC), who noted that if all the other elements of criminal harassment are established, "as long as some part of the conduct amounts to harassment, it is not necessary to establish that the predominant purpose is harassment." [emphasis added at para.84]

[56] Thus, while the accused's text messages relating directly to recovery of ostensibly stolen property (such as advising the complainant to "lawyer up" and threatening that he was going to report thefts to police) might well fit within the boundaries of "lawful authority", there are abundant examples of communications that profess love, or imply self-harm which cannot be said to fit within any lawful exemption.

[57] While I perceive challenges with the Crown proving that Ms. Chiro was indeed harassed or that her perception was objectively reasonably held, this case can be more easily resolved by addressing the Crown's burden to prove Mr. Fields' knowledge that his conduct caused Ms. Chiro to be harassed.

[58] The quantity of the communications across text messages, WhatsApp, voice calling, and FaceTime is incessant and disturbing. It is apparent that Mr. Fields also conscripted his mother and brother into making calls and attempted at times to use a friend's cell phone in an effort to elicit a response from Ms. Chiro. These efforts were successful on multiple occasions when Ms. Chiro engaged Mr. Fields in conversations or texts.

[59] Although Ms. Chiro indicated that her communications with Mr. Fields were done solely at the instruction of police to assist in locating him, Mr. Fields had no way of knowing that. She engaged him in conversation multiple times about the dog, issues of trust in their relationship, and even explained her lack of response for a period of time by telling Mr. Fields that she had been in the shower because the dog urinated on her. At no time does Ms. Chiro ever communicate, even in an oblique way, that she is fearful, upset or disturbed by Mr. Fields' conversations or constant interruptions.

[60] There is no legal obligation upon a complainant to explicitly advise an accused that his communications are unwelcome or should be stopped. However, the absence of such explicit instruction leaves only a contextual analysis upon which the Crown can rely to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

[61] If Ms. Chiro had not responded at all to Mr. Fields' bombardment, or had responded and communicated her displeasure at any time, that may have led to a reasonable inference that Mr. Fields knew, or should have known, his repeated communications were unwanted. However, sporadic responses from Ms. Chiro, some of which she initiated after lengthy pauses from Mr. Fields, along with invitations to come see the dog, could reasonably have led Mr. Fields to believe that Ms. Chiro was agreeable to keeping the lines of communication between them open.

Conclusion

[62] Having carefully considered all of the evidence, I am left in reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Fields knew his repeated communications harassed Ms. Chiro, or knew that his repeated communications risked causing Ms. Chiro to be harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether Ms. Chiro was harassed.

[63] Accordingly, Mr. Fields is found not guilty of the offence of criminal harassment.

Released: September 3, 2020

Signed: Justice Edward Prutschi

Footnote

[1] A complete digital copy of the text messages was filed as Exhibit 1 at the trial. Times on the document are noted as "(UTC+0)" which all parties agreed was a reference to Greenwich Mean Time. Thus, it is necessary to subtract four hours from the time appearing in the extraction logs to acquire the actual Ontario local time for each of the messages. All references to text times in this judgment will have accounted for the calculation and represent local times.