Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2024-12-06

Between: HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

TODD ANSELL

Before: Justice Mara Greene

Counsel: D. Beaton, for the Crown J. Saftic, for Todd Ansell

Reasons for Judgment released December 6, 2024

[1] Mr. Ansell is facing two charges: public mischief and uttering threats. It is alleged that he made a false allegation against his neighbour, Mr. Rocha and that when he was arrested for this charge he uttered a threat to cause death to one of the officers involved with the arrest.

Summary of the Evidence

[2] Mr. Ansel lives on a plot of land adjacent to the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rocha. There have been ongoing disputes between Mr. Ansel and the Rochas for some time and have led to the Rocha’s calling police and by-law enforcement officers on Mr. Ansell. Many of the disputes relate to allegations by the Rochas that Mr. Ansell lets his dog outside, off leash where he wonders onto their property.

[3] On October 14 and October 23, 2023, in response to complaints made by Ms. Rocha, officers and by-law enforcement personnel attended at Mr. Ansell’s property. They served him with a number of tickets in relation to his dog being on the Rocha’s property. On these dates, Mr. Ansell accepted the tickets and made no complaints about Mr. and Mrs. Rocha.

[4] On October 25, 2023, Mr. Ansell telephoned the police and made a complaint about Mr. Rocha. As a result of his telephone call, Officer Webster attended at Mr. Ansell’s residence and took a statement from him. Mr. Ansell told Officer Webster that on an earlier date his dog got out, chased a deer and ended up on the Rocha’s property. Mr. Ansell alleged that Mr. Rocha came outside and threatened to shoot Mr. Ansell, his dog and his niece. When asked about the date of this particular event, Mr. Ansell replied that he thought it was two Sundays ago. According to the calendar, this would correspond to October 15, 2023.

[5] At trial the 911 call made by Mr. Ansell was played. In this call, Mr. Ansell told the dispatcher that he could not recall the exact date of the threat. Mr. Ansell first stated that it was “last weekend”. He later stated “I think it was not this past weekend but the weekend before. It was a Sunday, I remember that “.

[6] After receiving the allegation, Officer Webster created a general report. No further action was taken until November at which point an officer telephoned the Rocha’s and advised them of the allegation. Mr. Rocha told the investigating officer that he could not possibly have committed the offence as he was in Sudbury on October 15. Mr. Rocha provided the police with receipts confirming his presence in Sudbury on October 15. Mr. Rocha was, however, at his residence on Manitoulin Island two days later on October 17, 2023.

[7] Both Mr. and Mrs. Rocha testified at trial. They testified about their ongoing disputes with Mr. Ansell. Both testified that they were in Sudbury on October 15, 2023, and that they were on Manitoulin Island from October 17 through to October 19, 2023. Mr. Rocha denied making any threats to Mr. Ansell.

[8] At some point Officer Webster decided that the allegation made by Mr. Ansell was false and decided to arrest Mr. Ansell for the offence of public mischief.

[9] On December 8, 2023, Officer Webster was called to Mr. Ansell’s property to investigate a complaint Mr. Ansell was making against Ms. Rocha. Mr. Ansell was concerned that Mrs. Rocha was accessing his private records. For reasons that are unclear on the record before me, it was noted as a “mental health call”. It seems that Officer Webster, upon arriving at Mr. Ansell’s property in response to Mr. Ansell’s request for assistance, decided to make the arrest on the public mischief charge from the October complaint.

[10] When advised of the allegation, Mr. Ansell commented that this was going to trial for sure. Mr. Ansell expressed annoyance, surprise, and frustration that he was being charged for calling the police about an event where he was the victim. The officers then advised Mr. Ansell that he was being arrested because the complaint he made was false. Mr. Ansell replied, “so I am getting arrested for a prank call”. He then commented on how the system was broken.

[11] Mr. Ansell was transported to the detachment in Little Current. Officer Taylor was working at the station at the time. Sometime after Mr. Ansell’s arrival at the station, Officer Taylor advised Mr. Ansell that he was not going to be released that day. Instead, he was being held overnight for a bail hearing. In response to this, Mr. Ansell stated he would kill PC Taylor and that the officer should watch his back. PC Taylor then arrested Mr. Ansell for uttering a threat to cause death. While reading Mr. Ansell his rights to counsel, Mr. Ansell said that if anything happens to his dog, he will break PC Taylor’s jaw. Later, Mr. Ansell said to PC Taylor, that he will come to the officer’s residence and stab him.

[12] PC Taylor testified that this caused him to fear for his safety.

Analysis

[13] The starting point in understanding any decision in a criminal court is understanding the burden of proof. The burden lies on the Crown to prove each essential element of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard. Reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or the lack of evidence. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Ansell is possibly or even probably guilty. Reasonable doubt requires more. As a standard, reasonable doubt lies far closer to absolute certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities. In order to convict, a trial judge must be sure that every essential element of the offences before the court have been made out.

[14] Mr. Ansell faces two charges. One is public mischief and the other is uttering threats to cause death an officer.

[15] In relation to the public mischief charge, the Crown must prove that Mr. Ansell made a false statement to police. Crown counsel argued that he has met his burden. Crown counsel relies on the following evidence to support his position:

a) Mr. Ansell’s comment about a prank call. Crown counsel argued this was akin to an admission. b) The fact that Mr. Rocha was in Sudbury on October 15, 2023. c) The fact that Mr. Rocha denied making any threats to Mr. Ansell. d) The fact that Mr. Ansell had a motive to fabricate an allegation against Mr. Rocha due to the recent tickets Mr. Ansell received. e) The fact that Mr. Ansell did not report the alleged threat at the time of the event, despite the fact that he had contact with police and by-law enforcement officers.

[16] In relation to Mr. Ansell’s comment about the allegation being a “prank call”, I do not view this as an admission of any sort. Mr. Ansell was told that he was being charged with making a false allegation. Mr. Ansell then made the comment about the prank call. This was not an admission by Mr. Ansell that he in fact made a prank call, his comment was in response to being told that he was being charged for effectively making a false allegation which can also be described as a “prank call”. In my view, when Mr. Ansell’s words are taken in context, the only reasonable inference is that he was expressing surprise and frustration with being charged. He was not making any sort of admission.

[17] In relation to the fact that Mr. Ansell failed to mention this to police earlier, while one inference is that the event did not occur, the other inference is that Mr. Ansell for other reasons decided not to make the allegations at that time. There are a number of reasons why he might hold off making allegations. For example, Mr. Ansell was given tickets for by-law infractions, it is unclear if the person ticketing him was even the right person to investigate a criminal offence as opposed to a by-law infraction. I do not view this as a basis to find that the allegation made by Mr. Ansell was false.

[18] The fact that Mr. Rocha denied the allegation or that Mr. Rocha was not on Manitoulin Island on October 15 also does not lead me to conclude that Mr. Ansell made a false allegation. Mr. Rocha was on the island two days later and Mr. Ansell stated a number of times that he was uncertain of the date of the offence. It is reasonably possible that Mr. Ansell just had the date wrong.

[19] I am mindful that Mr. Ansell has an animus towards the Rochas. The relationship was clearly terrible. This, however, does not mean that Mr. Ansell made a false allegation against Mr. Rocha.

[20] When I consider all the evidence, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rocha did not make a threat to Mr. Ansell. In other words, I am left in a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ansell made a false allegation against Mr. Rocha. I find Mr. Ansell not guilty of this offence.

[21] In relation to the charge of uttering threats to cause death to Officer Taylor, counsel for Mr. Ansell conceded that Mr. Ansell uttered a threat to cause death but argued that I should be left in a reasonable doubt about whether the mens rea of the offence has been proven. Counsel argued that Mr. Ansell’s threat was made in the heat of the moment without any intention to intimidate or to have the threat be taken seriously. As such he argued that Mr. Ansell should be found not guilty of this offence

[22] Uttering threats is a specific intent offence. The mens rea for the offence of uttering threats includes the intention to intimidate or to have the threat taken seriously (R. v. Clemente, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758 at para 12). In assessing whether the accused had the requisite mens rea, I must consider the words spoken, the recipient of the threat and the context in which the threat was made. In R. v. Fewer, Gorman J described the mens rea for uttering threats as follows:

• the mens rea element requires the application of a subjective test. What did the accused actually intend? In determining “what was in the accused's mind, a court will often have to draw reasonable inferences from the words and the circumstances, including how the words were perceived by those hearing them” (see McCrae, at paragraph 23);

• the accused must have intended for her or his threat to either be taken seriously or to intimidate (a disjunctive test), though the person threatened does not have to be shown to have been intimidated or to have taken the words seriously; nor does the person threatened have to hear the threat; nor does the accused have to intend to carry the threat out; or have it conveyed to the victim (see Ross and Deneault);

• an intention to intimidate involves an attempt to cause fear or the occurrence of an event or action by resort to the use of “menacing, violent or frightening acts or language” (see R. v. Weinmeyer, 2013 SKPC 19, at paragraph 18); and

• an intention to be taken seriously involves attempting to persuade the recipient of the threat that you intend to carry out the threat uttered

[23] In the case at bar, Officer Taylor testified that Mr. Ansell threatened to kill him and that he took this threat seriously. While Mr. Ansell was in custody when he made this threat, and therefore not in a position to carry it out in that moment, this does not lead me to conclude that Mr. Ansell did not intend for the threat to be taken seriously. At the end of the threat Mr. Ansell told Officer Taylor to watch his back. In my view, the only inference to be drawn from this comment is that the threat will be carried out at some later date when Mr. Ansell was better positioned to carry out the threat.

[24] At the time the threats were made, Mr. Ansell was upset as he had just been arrested on what he perceived as unfair charges. He was also angry because he had just been told that he would remain in custody for the night. While I appreciate that someone facing extreme stress can make comments they do not mean in the heat of the moment, there is no evidence before me that that this is what occurred in the case at bar. I appreciate that Mr. Ansell was upset and angry, but this alone does not support a finding that Mr. Ansell did not have the requisite mens rea. More often than not people are angry when they utter threats, this does not automatically negate the mens rea.

[25] When I consider the words spoken by Mr. Ansell and the context in which he made the threat, in my view, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ansell uttered a threat to cause death and that he intended that threat to be taken seriously. Mr. Ansell expressed it as a threat that he would carry out at a later date – presumably when he was better positioned to carry out the threat. Objectively, a reasonable person hearing the threat made in this context would have taken it seriously.

[26] I therefore find Mr. Ansell not guilty of public mischief but guilty of uttering threat to cause death.

Released December 6, 2024 Justice Mara Greene