CITATION: R. v. Northrup, 2026 ONSC 4242

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-11404434

DATE: 2026/07/20

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Matthew Northrup

Defendant

T. Straw, for the Crown

N. Gorham, K.C. and B. Vandebeek, for the Defendant

HEARD: March 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, and May 7, 2026

Reasons for Judgment

Rees J.

Overview

1Matthew Northrup is charged with four counts arising from an argument alleged to have occurred during the night of March 2, 2023, with his then intimate partner, Kaylie Featherstone. Those counts are using a firearm in the commission of an offence, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and careless use of a firearm. Mr. Northrup is also charged with one count of uttering threats arising from an earlier statement the Crown alleges he made on Boxing Day 2022.

2The Crown called a single witness, Ms. Featherstone. Mr. Northrup testified in his defence. The Crown and defence entered into two agreed statements of facts. It is admitted that the police recovered a safe in the bedroom shared by Mr. Northrup and Ms. Featherstone, which contained passports, a watch and paperwork. It is also admitted that the police recovered a small briefcase safe in the basement of their home, which contained two handguns which had trigger locks securing each of them.

General framework: burden and assessment of evidence

Burden of proof

3The Crown bears the burden of proving each element of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the accused.

4A reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or prejudice; it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence: see R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 39. The Crown is not required to prove a criminal charge to an absolute certainty, but the court must be satisfied, based on all the evidence, of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. While I do not have to be absolutely certain of the accused’s guilt, the standard of reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities”: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 242.

5In considering the totality of the evidence, I have applied R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. This case turns on the credibility of Mr. Northrup and Ms. Featherstone. As such, W.(D.) requires the following:

a. First, if I believe Mr. Northrup’s evidence, I must acquit.

b. Second, if I do not believe Mr. Northrup’s evidence but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit.

c. Third, even if I am not left in doubt by Mr. Northrup’s evidence, I must ask myself whether, based on the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of Mr. Northrup’s guilt.

6The principles in W.(D.) apply whenever the court is presented with evidence inconsistent with guilt, whether adduced by the Crown or by the defence (through cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses or through a defence witness): R. v. B.D., 2011 ONCA 51, 266 C.C.C. (3d) 197, at para. 105.

7At the first step of the W.(D.) analysis, an accused’s evidence should not be considered in isolation but in the context of all the evidence: R. v. Hoohing, 2007 ONCA 577, at para. 15. Thus, if the accused’s account is believed or leaves the court with a reasonable doubt about what happened, within the context of the totality of the evidence, he must be found not guilty.

8If, after considering the whole of the evidence, the court is not sure who to believe, this can also give rise to a reasonable doubt: R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at paras. 11-12.

9My task is not to determine which of two versions of an event is more believable; it “is to determine whether the Crown has met its burden of proving the elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt”: R. v. T.A., 2020 ONCA 783, at para. 28.

Assessment of credibility and reliability

10The term “credibility” has to do with a witness’s veracity, honesty, or truthfulness. The term “reliability” has to do with a witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events at issue: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 41. I must consider both dimensions of a witness’s evidence. A witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on that point. By contrast, a credible witness may nevertheless give unreliable evidence: R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at p. 526.

11After assessing credibility and reliability, I may believe all, some, or none of a witness’s evidence: R. v. François, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827, at p. 837.

Analysis

Mr. Northrup’s evidence

Background and employment

12Mr. Northrup was born in New Brunswick. After graduating from high school, he joined the military. He served for 12 years, about seven years as an infantry soldier and five years in military intelligence. He deployed to Afghanistan three times. He saw considerable combat during his second deployment. During his third deployment, he was part of a special intelligence unit.

13Mr. Northrup left the military in 2014. He initially worked as a private investigator and started his own private investigation company within about a year. He later worked as a counter-intelligence expert for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) and then moved into the private sector, working for Ernst & Young. He lost his job with Ernst & Young because of the criminal charges before the court.

14Mr. Northrup has no criminal record and no other outstanding charges other than those before the court. In 2009, he was found guilty of driving under the influence but received a record suspension or pardon.

15In 2014, Mr. Northrup married Jamie Northrup. Their relationship lasted about five years; they separated in July 2019. They have two children, a boy and a girl. They disagreed during their separation about finances and custody of their children. Their disagreements over those issues persisted while he was in a relationship with Ms. Featherstone. He expressed frustrations about Ms. Northrup to Ms. Featherstone and he did not speak of Ms. Northrup in the most positive light. Ms. Featherstone was supportive when he expressed his frustrations about Ms. Northrup.

Relationship with Ms. Featherstone

16Mr. Northrup met Ms. Featherstone in the summer of 2022. He described the relationship as having progressed rapidly. By July or August of that year, they were speaking of being in love and having a future together. They discussed their long-term goals. They talked about moving in together, having a blended family, and possibly having children together.

17They moved in together in October 2022, renting a house in Nepean. Ms. Featherstone moved in with her son. At times, he shared parenting responsibilities for her son. When his own children stayed with them, he and Ms. Featherstone shared parenting responsibilities for them.

18After moving in with Ms. Featherstone, they had periods of interpersonal conflict. They disagreed about their parenting styles, childcare, communication, and their relationship. They did not always agree on how to parent each other’s children. On cross-examination, he agreed that the relationship cycled through arguments, followed by tension, and then a return to their ordinary routine. After arguments, they would sometimes withdraw from each-other for a period before returning to normal. He did not consider the relationship to have taken a turn immediately when they moved in together, but he felt it took a turn in February 2023.

19During the relevant period, he and Ms. Northrup had a 50/50 parenting schedule for their children on a week-about basis, with exchanges on Fridays. He had a close relationship with his children and loves them.

20During weeks when the children were with him and Ms. Featherstone, the children attended school Monday to Friday, took the bus around 8:55 to 9:05 a.m., and returned around 4:10 to 4:15 p.m. They had an evening routine of supper, homework, baths, activities where possible, and bedtime around 8:30 pm. He and Ms. Featherstone shared meal preparation, based on who was available. He was more of a cook. He always did homework with the children and often did baths, although Ms. Featherstone sometimes helped. Mr. Northrup’s intention was always to be the primary parent to his children when they were with him.

21Ms. Featherstone provided Ms. Northrup with an affidavit in the Northrups’ family law proceedings, which deposed that Mr. Northrup absolved himself of responsibility as a parent. Mr. Northrup denied that this was true. Mr. Northrup denied that Ms. Featherstone became the primary caregiver for his children.

22I pause here to observe that Ms. Featherstone was cross-examined at length based on text messages between her and Mr. Northrup. These text messages included extensive communication about work, childcare arrangements, groceries, and meal planning. Mr. Northrup testified that these text messages came from his phone and were a complete rendition of their text messages about childcare, though he and Ms. Featherstone also discussed childcare face to face.

23Their weekend routines included family pizza movie night on Fridays, errands and activities on Saturdays, and similar activities on Sundays, including winding-down and preparation for the week ahead. This included activities with his children, such as birthday parties, taking his son shooting, and going to hockey games.

24Mr. Northrup denied Ms. Featherstone’s claim that he always made her get the children off the bus. He recalled messages in which he told her he could be back for pickup but was concerned about leaving work before 4 p.m. several times in a row. This occurred during one of his first weeks at Ernst & Young, when there was onboarding and he wanted to show that he was motivated at work while also meeting his childcare commitments. He was trying to balance being a dedicated employee with being a dedicated father. He estimated that he and Ms. Featherstone evenly shared picking his children up at the bus. He stated that she was a “huge help”. She was able to help because she worked almost exclusively from home and they lived about 20 metres from the bus stop, whereas Ernst & Young was downtown and his drive home was typically about 20 to 25 minutes.

Count 5: Uttering Threats – Boxing Day 2022

25Ms. Featherstone alleges that on Boxing Day, 2022, Mr. Northrup threatened, if she ever left him, to kill her, his ex-spouse, and himself. Mr. Northrup denies this.

26Mr. Northrup denied ever threatening to kill Ms. Featherstone. He denied saying, whether as a joke or otherwise, that he might kill Ms. Featherstone, kill Jamie Northrup, and kill himself. He would not find such a joke funny. He denied threatening to kill or cause serious bodily harm to Ms. Featherstone, denied assaulting her in any way, denied telling her that he thought about or intended to kill Jamie Northrup, and denied making threats toward Jamie Northrup to Ms. Featherstone.

27The subject of killing anyone came up only during a discussion he had with Ms. Featherstone after the police conducted a welfare check on December 27, 2022, which he described as an intense and traumatic event.

28Mr. Northrup testified that the police attended at the house after he and Ms. Northrup had a dispute over child access during the Christmas holidays. Ms. Northrup wanted the children for a mid-week visit on December 27, but he believed that the holiday schedule meant he would return them on the regular Friday handover date. Their communications occurred through the electronic communication application, Our Family Wizard. He did not threaten to kill or cause bodily harm to anyone in those messages. Ms. Northrup threatened to call police if he did not bring the children to the drop-off point on December 27.

29After the exchange of messages, the police then arrived at the home he and Ms. Featherstone shared with three cruisers and a tactical vehicle. In total, six officers attended. He considered this extreme for a welfare check.

30After the officers left, he and Ms. Featherstone put the children to bed and then debriefed about the experience on the couch. He showed Ms. Featherstone the Our Family Wizard messages and remarked to Ms. Featherstone that the messages were benign and normal, so whatever Ms. Northrup had said to elicit such a heavy-handed police response must have been severe. He told Ms. Featherstone that the police must have thought they were going to get into a gunfight, and that for them to attend in that way they would have needed to think he was suicidal or was going to kill Ms. Northrup or Ms. Featherstone, or something to that effect. In cross-examination, he described this as a theory he shared with Ms. Featherstone about what might have caused such a heavy-handed police response. He denied that he ever said those things as a threat.

31Mr. Northrup also testified about an earlier incident, which occurred in March 2020. He received a call from Ottawa police saying that Ms. Northrup felt unsafe with his firearms stored in their former matrimonial home. He agreed to remove the firearms but needed an authorization to transport restricted firearms, which he obtained. After Mr. Northrup placed the firearms in his vehicle and transported them according to the authorization, Ms. Northrup made a second complaint to the RCMP. She told police that she feared he was suicidal and a danger to himself because he had the firearms. He shared this story with Ms. Featherstone as an example of frustrating events involving Ms. Northrup. He denied telling Ms. Featherstone that he was driving around with loaded guns while suicidal or ready for a gunfight with police.

Storage of Mr. Northrup’s firearms

32Mr. Northrup had three safes: a white fire safe containing valuables, a biometric gun safe that had previously been under the bed in the bedroom he shared with Ms. Featherstone, and a briefcase-style combination-lock gun case, which he stored in the basement.

33He kept the white fire safe under the vanity in their bathroom. It contained passports, paperwork, a watch belonging to a friend, valuable coins, and other personal items.

34He stored the briefcase-style hard-shell gun case in the basement. It was opened by two three-digit combination locks rather than keys. He testified that on March 2, 2023, both his pistols were stored in the basement in the combination-lock case.

35At times, Mr. Northrup had stored the biometric gun safe under the bed in the principal bedroom. It had previously contained a pistol and magazine. But in early January 2023, he had moved the biometric safe to the basement. It was empty. He removed the pistol from the biometric gun safe in early January because he did not feel it was secure in the bedroom. The biometric function rarely worked and the safe could be opened by key. When he opened the safe to replace or test the battery, he noticed the firearm was present but the hammer was cocked to the rear, which was not how he would leave that model of firearm. This led him to believe someone had been in the safe and manipulated the firearm. As between the children and Ms. Featherstone, he concluded Ms. Featherstone likely accessed it.

36The key to the biometric safe was on the same key ring as the key to the white fire safe. He kept them in his bedside table. He had never given Ms. Featherstone permission to access either safe or take the keys.

Events of March 2, 2023

37Mr. Northrup worked from home on March 2, 2023. He and Ms. Featherstone were in the midst of an unresolved argument, which had been triggered by their difficulty communicating and a missed plan to meet at a Lone Star.

38He later went to a pub near his home to have drinks with a former colleague. Their argument continued via text messages before and while he was at the pub. Their argument broadened to include topics such as communication, loyalty, and, once he was home, parenting. Ms. Featherstone did not respond to all Mr. Northrup’s messages and this frustrated him because he wanted to have the conversation.

39He consumed around five pints of beer between 3:45 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. He did not feel intoxicated. His motor functions and ability to communicate felt normal to him; he was familiar with how he felt when intoxicated. He drank socially fairly frequently, from two to four drinks in a social setting, and tended to drink more with Ms. Featherstone on weekends when he did not have his children. He generally did not consume alcohol during weeks when he had his children, apart from perhaps a pint of beer while out for supper.

40Mr. Northrup returned home around 9 p.m. Ms. Featherstone was in bed. He went to see her in the bedroom and their argument continued. The argument lasted around two hours, with periods that were heated and other periods that were calm. At times, both he and Ms. Featherstone cried. Mr. Northrup characterized it as a relationship-ending argument. By the end, he made it clear that the relationship was over.

41After the argument ended, he noticed two pieces of jewellery he had recently purchased for Ms. Featherstone and decided to take them and place them in the white fire safe. He brought the fire safe from the bathroom to the side of the bed, laid it on the floor, opened his bedside table drawer to retrieve the keys, and found the keys missing.

42Ms. Featherstone was on the bed beside him. When he asked where the keys were, she said she had hidden them. When he asked why, she said words to the effect that she did not want him getting his gun. He thought that comment was ridiculous. He told her, “Give me the fucking keys. They’re my keys. They don’t belong to you. Give them to me”. She stood up, went to her dresser, retrieved the keys from a lower drawer, and tossed them to him across the bed.

43When he had the keys in his hand, Ms. Featherstone said, “So what now? Are you going to shoot me?” He thought her question was provocative and ridiculous; he did not believe it was a serious expression of fear. He replied to her, “Kaylie, I’m not going to shoot you. I wouldn’t do that to the gun lobby.” He acknowledged that his reply was crude, inappropriate, and facetious.

44He then opened the fire safe and told Ms. Featherstone that he was making sure his belongings were safe. He put the ring and bracelet in the safe, checked a watch belonging to a friend, and verified other contents, including his own valuables. He denied that there was a gun or ammunition in the safe and denied handling a firearm or ammunition at that time.

45While he was checking the contents of the safe, Ms. Featherstone leapt out of bed and began screaming, “Matt, what are you doing? What are you doing? Don’t shoot me. Matt, no.” He considered her conduct theatrical and provocative. He looked behind him as she moved toward the door, continued to scream, and left the room. While she exited, she had her phone in her hand in a way he thought suggested she was recording him; he described the phone light as being on and her body positioning as consistent with filming. Earlier, during the argument, he had asked to see her iPhone voice memo app and she showed him it was not recording at that time, but he believed she could still have been recording by another means or at a later point.

46After Ms. Featherstone left the bedroom, he heard words including “police” and believed she had called police. He initially remained in the bedroom to finish checking the items, closed the safe, and exited the room. In the hallway, he saw that Ms. Featherstone’s son’s door was open and the light was on, and that her son was not there. Mr. Northrup proceeded to the kitchen and saw that the door to the garage was ajar. He opened it and saw that the garage bay door was open and that Ms. Featherstone’s vehicle was gone. Mr. Featherstone went outside. His initial concern was that their dog might have escaped through the open doors, so he called for the dog. He then went back inside, closed the garage and kitchen doors, put on his jacket and shoes, and prepared to meet police outside. He saw police lights reflecting off a nearby house, began to exit, and was arrested outside.

47In cross-examination, Mr. Northrup stated that about 40 seconds elapsed between Ms. Featherstone leaving the bedroom and him determining that she and her son had left the residence. He agreed that, from his perspective, during that time she had left the bedroom, taken her son from his room, and driven away. He testified that he did not initially follow her because her leaving while screaming was, to him, an alert not to follow.

48Mr. Northrup denied the Crown suggestion that he went into the basement between Ms. Featherstone leaving and the police arriving. He denied moving the gun safe into the basement during that time. He denied the Crown’s suggestions that he had a safe under the bed on March 2 that contained a firearm, that he handled a firearm while intoxicated, that he put a firearm away after Ms. Featherstone left the bedroom, or that the argument escalated because he accessed a firearm.

49In cross-examination, Mr. Northrup agreed that Ms. Featherstone had not previously expressed concern about him having firearms in the house. He agreed she knew about the safe under the bed when it had previously held a firearm. He denied that Ms. Featherstone asked “what now” while he was grabbing a safe under the bed with a firearm, and maintained that she made the shooting comment when he was handling the fire safe. He agreed that the shooting reference was the only time during the argument that a reference to shooting was made. He denied previous threats to Ms. Featherstone about what he would do if she left him, and denied threatening that he would shoot Ms. Featherstone, Jamie Northrup, and himself if Ms. Featherstone ever left.

50After his arrest he spoke with Detective Stewart in a videotaped interview. At that time, he was not certain that Ms. Featherstone had filmed him in the bedroom. He told Detective Stewart that he believed she had been filming and demonstrated the way she held the phone. He spoke to the detective thinking that there was a possibility that she had actually filmed him during the events in question. He had no concern that there would be video evidence of him holding a gun or ammunition because he was not holding a gun or ammunition.

51Mr. Northrup was interviewed by the Children’s Aid Society in Ottawa in mid to late March 2023 because Ms. Featherstone’s son had been present in the house during the March 2 incident. During the CAS interview, he disclosed an incident from February 2023 involving Ms. Featherstone and her son. During an argument between himself and Ms. Featherstone, her son entered the room, and Ms. Featherstone turned her attention from him to her son and began screaming at her son. He urged her to stop and told her that her son had nothing to do with it. Ms. Featherstone took her son down the hallway roughly, put him in the bath, and that he later heard the sound of a child falling in a bathtub. He went to the bathroom. He did not know how her son had fallen and did not infer it was Ms. Featherstone’s fault. When Ms. Featherstone removed her son from the tub, she did so recklessly, lost her grip on him, and her son’s head hit the side of the tub. He told Ms. Featherstone that if she did not stop, there would be a problem. The situation then calmed. She towelled off her son and put him to bed normally.

52After his release, Mr. Northrup learned Ms. Featherstone had left a letter for him at their residence. His aunt Angela informed his uncle Bill, who was his surety, and that when Bill picked him up from the courthouse they had permission to go briefly to the house to collect effects before Mr. Northrup left for Kingston. He also learned Ms. Featherstone had told his aunt she would be close by if he wanted to speak with her. He understood that to mean that if he initiated contact, she would accept a meeting, but he did not take her up on the offer because doing so would have breached his bail conditions.

53On re-examination, Mr. Northrup was asked about his firearms training. He testified that his training in handling firearms referred to his years of military service and handling firearms. He had received training about which hand he would use to pick up a firearm and described himself as a right-handed shooter. He testified that he would not pick up a gun with his left hand unless he was wounded on his right side.

Mr. Northrup was credible and reliable

54I find that Mr. Northrup was a credible and reliable witness. His evidence was cogent and coherent. There were no material internal inconsistencies in his evidence. He had good recall. His account was unshaken on cross-examination. While I do not place undue weight on his testimonial demeanour, Mr. Northrup presented as sincere and straightforward. He did not evade, deflect or prevaricate.

55The Crown argued that Mr. Northrup was not credible when he testified that he continued “cataloguing” items in the safe after Ms. Featherstone fled the room. The Crown contended that Mr. Northrup was not credible in asserting that he believed she was recording him as he reached for the safe and she then exited the room because he had earlier checked to see whether she was recording on her phone. The Crown also argued that his account that he prepared himself for the police arrival because he heard Ms. Featherstone say, “police, police, police” on her phone was not credible. The Crown argued that Mr. Northrup in fact used the time to move the gun safe to the basement.

56I do not agree that Mr. Northrup’s account was not credible. His account raises a reasonable doubt. While “cataloguing” may have been a poor choice of words, I accept that it was possible that Mr. Northrup briefly continued checking the contents of the white fire safe after Ms. Featherstone left the room. He testified that this took him no more than 20 seconds. Nor is it implausible that he heard Ms. Featherstone say “police” on her phone. I do not find it implausible that, if he saw Ms. Featherstone pointing her phone at him with its flashlight on, he would believe that she was recording him. The fact that he checked to see if she was recording him earlier in the argument does not negate this. Having previously experienced a heavy police response for a wellness check, I accept the possibility that Mr. Northrup prepared to meet the police by putting on his jacket and shoes. Mr. Northrup’s denials of using this time to move the gun safe to the basement were plausible. On the evidence as a whole, the Crown did not disprove his account.

57The only externally inconsistent evidence comes from Ms. Featherstone. As I will explain, however, I find that she was not a credible witness and I reject her evidence regarding the alleged offences.

Ms. Featherstone’s evidence

Background and employment

58Ms. Featherstone lives in a community near Ottawa and works as a senior solutions specialist for a telecom provider. She has worked in that field for 10 or 11 years. She has a young son from a previous relationship.

Relationship with Mr. Northrup

59She began an intimate relationship with Mr. Northrup in June 2022. She described the beginning of their relationship as very positive: he was attentive and kind, they spent significant time together, and the relationship progressed quickly after they met online. By October 2022, she, her son, and Mr. Northrup moved in together. They lived together from October 2022 until March 2023.

60After they moved in together, their relationship changed. They began fighting more often. There was more tension between them. Mr. Northrup had a new job and he was often out, and she felt that the connection between them had diminished. The arguments began within a week or two of moving in together and occurred two or three times a week. Mr. Northrup disagreed with her about how she was parenting her son. The arguments often ended with conversations about how she could have acted better, how she could have avoided the argument, and how it was her fault. These conversations left her feeling bad about herself and as though she owed it to Mr. Northrup to try to be better.

61She described a significant argument near the end of February 2023 about Mr. Northrup booking a trip to Daytona. He had his credit card out while working from home and told her he was booking the trip to attend a music festival with friends. She told him it was not a good time because they were trying to save to buy a house, his children were scheduled to stay with them that week, and she could not care for all three children alone. Mr. Northrup responded that his ex-spouse would care for his children. He said that he could afford the trip and that he was going. Ms. Featherstone did not want to keep fighting and checked out emotionally. Since January 2023, she had been messaging landlords and making appointments to look at places because she wanted out of the relationship.

62Over the course of their relationship, they discussed breaking up. These discussions went in circles. Either she would suggest they should break up or Mr. Northrup would say they should, but then he would say that he loved her and wanted to make the relationship work, and that he did not want to introduce his children to someone new.

Count 5: Uttering Threats – Boxing Day 2022

63Ms. Featherstone testified that Mr. Northrup said that if the relationship did not work out, “he would shoot me, shoot Jamie and then take himself out, because he wasn’t introducing his kids to anyone new, he wasn’t introducing a new girl to his friends and family, that that was gonna be it”.

64She testified that the first time he made that statement was around Boxing Day 2022, while they were at his aunt and uncle’s house in Kingston.

65Mr. Northrup had been arguing with Ms. Northrup on the Our Family Wizard app throughout the evening about parenting time over the holidays. While they were getting ready for bed, Mr. Northrup put his phone down and said, “If you ever leave me, I’m going to shoot you, I’m gonna drive to Jamie’s, I’m gonna shoot Jamie, and then I’m gonna take myself out.”

66Ms. Featherstone testified in chief that she did not feel scared when he made this statement. Rather, she felt sorry for him that he felt this way. At the time, she felt sad that Mr. Northrup was so angry and hurt. She perceived that he was hurting, sad and angry because of his dispute with his ex-spouse.

67When Mr. Northrup made threats or comments about his ex spouse, Ms. Featherstone would laugh them off or not engage further because she did not know what else to do. She described his tone when making those comments as serious and stern. She also testified that Mr. Northrup had told her that he had previously tried to take his own life with his guns. In hindsight, comments about using his guns were probably a cry for help, if anything.

68Ms. Featherstone admitted on cross-examination that she did not take it seriously that Mr. Northrup intended to kill her. She also admitted that she did not think, at the time he made the statements, that he intended it to be a threat to her to be taken seriously. She admitted that she believed that Mr. Northrup was just blowing off steam because he was upset with this ex-spouse. She admitted that, in the moment, Mr. Northrup did not mean it seriously against his ex-spouse. She also agreed that she would have tried to warn someone if she had thought that he meant it to be taken seriously and his ex-spouse’s life was at risk.

69Ms. Featherstone admitted on cross-examination that it was only after she reported him to the police, that she put everything together and felt that Mr. Northrup might make good on killing her, his ex-wife and himself.

70After Boxing Day, there was ongoing tension between Mr. Northrup and his ex-spouse. Ms. Northrup had called police to conduct a wellness check on the children. Mr. Northrup argued with police on the phone and did not want the wellness check to occur. After that, Mr. Northrup became focused on getting back at his ex-spouse or finding ways to hurt her.

Events of March 2, 2023

71Around late January or early February 2023, Ms. Featherstone was preparing for a work trip to Vancouver. She and Mr. Northrup were not spending much time together. Their relationship continued to go downhill. She was speaking with landlords, looking for a way to leave, and no longer wanted to spend time with him or be alone with him. She would have her friend come over as often as possible.

72In the days leading up to March 2, 2023, the relationship was effectively over from her perspective. She had made the decision to leave and had met with a landlord about renting a house near her parents. She was considering how best to leave, including whether to move her belongings when Mr. Northrup was not home or to have a conversation with him. She was concerned that if she had a conversation with him, she might stay.

73After she returned from British Columbia, Mr. Northrup became more focused on who she was speaking with, where she was going, and whom she was meeting, including when she was out with her friend Brittany or by herself.

74On the morning of March 2, Ms. Featherstone was getting ready to go work downtown. Mr. Northrup came into the bathroom and asked where she was going. She replied that she was going to the office and that he knew that. She later sent him a message asking if he wanted to talk or meet for lunch at the Lone Star near their home. He suggested a time that did not work for her. They were unable to meet.

75Mr. Northrup was angry that they did not meet up. He sent a message stating that he was meeting a co-worker for a drink.

76She got home around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m., picked up her son, and returned home. She began receiving text messages from Mr. Northrup calling her stupid and saying that if she was ever in a crisis she should never call him. She told him to stop because she was spending time with her son, but he continued berating her over text message, so she blocked his number. She believed he was drunk and angry, and that they would have another fight that night.

77After blocking him, Ms. Featherstone hid the keys to a white safe that was kept under the bathroom vanity. The white safe contained items such as passports and contained the keys to Mr. Northrup’s gun safe, which he kept under their bed. She described the gun safe under the bed as looking like a little black toolbox that held a handgun and ammunition.

78She hid the keys because of Mr. Northrup’s earlier threat to shoot her, shoot his ex-spouse, and then shoot himself; his disclosure about a prior suicide attempt with guns; and her fear that he was in a dark mental place. She was scared because he knew she wanted out of their relationship. She thought to herself, “is he going to shoot me and then shoot Jamie and then himself, or is he gonna shoot my son to try and prove a point, because he hated how I parented my son and we argued a little bit about that too?” He was lashing out over text message, and he was just getting angrier.

79She then made dinner for her son, gave him a bath, put him to bed, which she described as “just a normal night”. She poured herself a glass of red wine and got into bed to watch television, and was getting ready to go to sleep. She did not know if Mr. Northrup was coming home, so she “was just planning my night without him”.

80Mr. Northrup came home around 9:00 p.m. Ms. Featherstone was already in bed and on her phone when he entered their bedroom. He was angry and ready to fight. She described him as accusatory, including accusing her of sleeping with other people. He grabbed her phone at one point while she was messaging a co-worker and accused her of cheating. He asked for her phone passcode, she gave him a fake one, and he then recited her actual passcode. She had previously given him her passcode, but had changed it after beginning to message a landlord about moving and because she had communications with friends and family about wanting to leave their relationship.

81During the argument, Mr. Northrup moved around the bedroom, questioned why she had given him a fake passcode, and asked whether she knew what he used to do for a living and what he had done in Afghanistan and in the military. Ms. Featherstone understood this to be a reference to his military background and later work as a private investigator. She interpreted it as him saying she could not hide anything from him and that he knew everything anyway.

82He then made derogatory comments about her son, including calling him a bitch, saying he was being raised by a bitch, and saying he would be better off if she was not in his life. He said that he would contact her son’s biological father and give him money to take her to court to get custody of her son. He called her a terrible mother and a horrible human being. He stated that she was taking a perfectly good boy away from him. Ms. Featherstone became terrified that Mr. Northrup was going to kill himself or her son.

83Mr. Northrup became animated with his hands, slammed his fists on a dresser, knocked over water. He became louder and scarier. She described him as seeming like a different person.

84She kept checking her phone. She became scared. She sat up with her knees to her chest. He repeatedly asked whether she was scared, whether she wanted to run away, and told her to call 911 or call someone for help. When she picked up her phone, he grabbed it from her hand and asked whether she was recording him. He grabbed her wrist, took the phone, checked that she was not recording, and gave it back.

85Mr. Northrup then went to the dresser, picked up a ring and another piece of jewellery he had bought her. He said she did not need them anymore and that he was going to put them in the safe. Ms. Featherstone told him she had hidden the keys to the safe. He asked why, and she told him she was scared because he was angry and drunk and she feared he might come home and hurt himself, her, or her son. She testified that he then became “eerily calm”. He stated that he did not need the keys to get into his gun safe because it used a biometric thumbprint. He demanded the keys, saying, “Give me the fucking keys now.” She got up and gave him the keys because she feared repercussions if she did not; he had already grabbed her wrist once to grab her phone; and he already told her that he did not need the keys to access the gun safe. There was no point in her hiding the keys at that point.

86After she handed Mr. Northrup the keys, he opened the white safe, placed the ring and bracelet inside, and took the keys to the gun safe. She was screaming and asking why he needed the keys to the gun safe. He walked around the side of the bed, knelt near where the gun safe was, and as he was grabbing it, said, “Relax. If I was gonna kill you, I wouldn’t shoot you, I’d strangle you, it’s much more satisfying.” He opened the case, grabbed the gun with his left hand and the clip with bullets in his right hand.

87Ms. Featherstone ran without looking back, went into her son’s room, took him from bed, called 911, and left the house.

88She described the firearm as a black handgun, but she did not know the make or model. She had seen the gun before when Mr. Northrup lived in Riverside South and showed her military items, including a gun belt and firearms. On that prior occasion, he opened the safe, took out the gun, showed her how the safety worked, and showed her how one would hold the gun, load it, and aim it, then put it away. There were two other guns in the house: another similar handgun in a safe in the basement, and a large rifle stored downstairs with a trigger lock.

89Ms. Featherstone explained that when Mr. Northrup said he would not shoot her but would strangle her, she thought he might be taking out the gun to kill himself or her son. Her concern arose from the comments he had made during the preceding two hours about her son being better off without her; her having taken a good boy away from him; her being a poor mother; and her raising her son in a way that Mr. Northrup criticized. She took Mr. Northrup’s comments very seriously.

90She described fleeing the house with her son. She jumped over the bed in her bedroom and ran into her son’s room. She pulled him from his crib by the arm and held him low. She thought that if Mr. Northrup shot at her, he would aim for her head, and she wanted her son to be lower. She grabbed the key, ran to the garage, dialled 911, placed her son in the back of the car without buckling him in, and began rolling out of the driveway while on the phone before even starting the car, with the car in neutral. She believed Mr. Northrup might shoot her through the window or follow her. She drove around the block and was told by the 911 operator to pull over and wait for police.

91The police arrived about eight to ten minutes later, one vehicle in front of her and one behind her. After leaving the house she had no further contact with Mr. Northrup that night. Later, she asked police whether she could go back to sleep in the house with her son. She did not want Mr. Northrup in the house. The police told her he had been arrested and was gone.

Ms. Featherstone was not credible

92I find that Ms. Featherstone was not a credible witness. I will outline the principal reasons why I come to this conclusion.

Ms. Featherstone lied under oath

93Ms. Featherstone testified in chief that the March 2 incident affected her greatly. She testified that she lived for a time with fear that Mr. Northrup would come after her or her son because she had called police and he had been arrested. She claimed to fear retaliation, including that Mr. Northrup might kill her or kill her son in front of her to get back at her or prove a point. She testified that she informed the school and daycare that they should call 911 if they saw Mr. Northrup, and remained on high alert for a period of time.

94She confirmed on cross-examination that she was afraid Mr. Northrup would try to get revenge or retribution. She confirmed her evidence that, from the night of his arrest, she lived in fear that he might come back and get her.

95She agreed on cross-examination that she thought Mr. Northrup might make good on his earlier threat to kill her, his ex-spouse, and himself. She also agreed that she thought he was highly unpredictable, and that he had served in the military and had been deployed several times to Afghanistan, had been in combat, and had worked in intelligence. He had been trained to kill. He had access to guns. He could kill without a gun. All this made her fear him.

96She agreed on cross-examination that, from the point of his arrest that night forward, she did not want to be alone with him because he might kill her. She did not want to die and did not want to be with him.

97She admitted on cross-examination that she learned that Mr. Northrup had been released on bail a few days later. She was concerned about him getting bail. She spoke with police, who kept her abreast of Mr. Northrup’s bail hearing. She agreed that the police reassured her that Mr. Northrup had court-ordered conditions that he could not communicate with her or be around her.

98She testified on cross-examination that these bail conditions did not ease her mind. She was still afraid that he might come and kill her. She did not want to be anywhere near Mr. Northrup because she valued her life and did not want to die.

99She denied on cross-examination that she had tried to set up a time where Mr. Northrup could come and secretly meet with her. She agreed with the suggestion that she didn’t want anything to do with that. She agreed with the suggestion that setting up a secret meeting with Mr. Northrup would be a crime for him and a dishonest thing for her to do. She again agreed with the suggestion that she certainly did not try to arrange a meeting with him because she did not want to die.

100She denied writing to his family members, trying to communicate with him and arrange a spot where he could come meet her. Although she admitted to communicating with his mother and aunt while Mr. Northrup was awaiting bail, she denied saying she would be at a particular place if Mr. Northrup wanted to meet her. Again, she agreed that she would not want to meet him because she might die.

101The defence fairly put it to her whether she could have forgot something like that. She denied that she could have forgot. She explained that she communicated with his aunt and mother because they wanted some details about what happened that night. They were also providing her with updates. After that, she was told that Mr. Northrup could be “nowhere near me, he can’t speak to me, that he was in Kingston”.

102The defence returned to this point after the lunch break on the first day of Ms. Featherstone’s evidence. Ms. Featherstone agreed that by the time she had provided her initial statement to police in the early hours of March 3 and her video statement on March 4, she was firmly of the view that Mr. Northrup was a dangerous person. She did not want to be in a relationship with him. She did not want to have contact with him. She did not want him in her presence and she did not want to communicate with him.

103The defence again returned to this point later in the cross-examination. She again denied that it was possible that she wanted to have a meeting with Mr. Northrup in person on March 6, so she could see if there was a chance of fixing up their relationship and staying with him. She testified that by that point she knew that the relationship was over.

104Her evidence in this regard was flatly contradicted by Facebook Messenger messages she had sent to Mr. Northrup’s aunt.

105Mr. Northrup’s aunt had contacted Ms. Featherstone seeking permission for his uncle to go to the home to collect Mr. Northrup’s belongings. His other aunt was going over to the house to clean it before he was released on bail. Ms. Featherstone gave her permission for Mr. Nortrup to come back to the house when she was not there.

106In her text exchange with Mr. Northrup’s aunt, Ms. Featherstone told her that she would be close to the house when Mr. Northrup came by to collect his belongings. In the text, Ms. Featherstone stated that if Mr. Northrup “says he wants to talk to me or anything at all, I’ll be there in a second”. Mr. Northrup’s aunt agreed to pass on her message.

107Despite being confronted with this message, Ms. Featherstone continued to deny she was trying to make a meeting with Mr. Northrup. She denied that she was asking that the message be conveyed to him. It was only after being pressed that Ms. Featherstone ultimately agreed that she wanted the message to be passed to Mr. Northrup.

108Ms. Featherstone ultimately admitted that this message contradicted her earlier evidence that she did not want to be anywhere close to Mr. Northrup because he might kill her, that she was scared for her life, and that she did not try to arrange a meeting with him. She admitted that the truth of the matter was that she wanted to see Mr. Northrup alone at the time of this message.

109Ms. Featherstone also admitted that she was willing to meet with Mr. Northrup despite being aware that he was subject to a no-contact order and that she was willing to lie about it to do it.

110I accept that a complainant may react with conflicting emotions after reporting intimate partner violence—including, love, regret, and fear. But that is not the issue. The issue is a narrower one: were Ms. Featherstone’s actions in wanting to see Mr. Northrup alone and her text messages consistent with her claim that she continued to fear for her life after he was released on bail? I find that they are not. Ms. Featherstone’s actions belie her evidence in this regard. I find that she was not being truthful when she testified that she had a continuing fear that Mr. Northrup may seek to retaliate against her after his arrest, including that he might kill her or kill her son.

111I find that Ms. Featherstone repeatedly lied in her evidence when she denied wanting to meet with Mr. Northrup after he was released on bail. This was no mere lapse of memory. Ms. Featherstone repeatedly told a deliberate falsehood in her evidence when she denied wanting to meet with Mr. Northrup after he was released on bail. This causes me significant concern about her truthfulness overall.

Ms. Featherstone swore a less than candid affidavit in the Northrups’ family proceedings

112Ms. Featherstone provided affidavit evidence to the lawyer for Ms. Northrup in her family proceedings against Mr. Northrup. In that affidavit, she deposed, “He treated me as a full-time caregiver, where he would absolve himself of any responsibility regarding the children during the weeks that we had the children.” She maintained under cross-examination that this was an accurate statement.

113It goes without saying that I am not here to adjudicate a family law dispute. The defence argued that the mischaracterization in Ms. Featherstone’s affidavit evidence was relevant in this proceeding both to her credibility generally and specifically that she was motivated to lie and paint Mr. Northrup in a negative light. I agree.

114I find that she was less than candid in her characterization of the accused. The defence cross-examined at length on this statement based on text-messages exchanged between Ms. Featherstone and Mr. Northrup while they were living together. What emerged from cross-examination is a picture of Mr. Northrup and Ms. Featherstone sharing responsibilities for child care, meal preparation, and the household. I find that she provided misleading evidence in her affidavit and she deliberately and inaccurately painted Mr. Northrup in a negative light.

115I also find that, rather than candidly admitting that her characterization was inaccurate, Ms. Featherstone continued to insist it was accurate against mounting evidence that it was false. This too left me with significant concern that Ms. Featherstone was willing to lie in her evidence at trial.

Ms. Featherstone remaining in the house is inconsistent with her stated fear on March 2, 2023

116Ms. Featherstone testified that on the evening of March 2, she hid the keys to the white safe because of Mr. Northrup’s earlier threat to shoot her, his ex-spouse, and then himself; his disclosure about a prior suicide attempt with guns; and her fear that he was in a dark mental place. She was scared because he knew she wanted out of their relationship. She testified that she thought to herself, “is he going to shoot me and then shoot Jamie and then himself, or is he gonna shoot my son to try and prove a point, because he hated how I parented my son and we argued a little bit about that too?” She testified that he was lashing out and his anger was escalating over text message.

117But there is a stark dissonance in her evidence between the fear that she says she had and her actions in response to what she perceived as a threat to her life and the life of her son. On cross-examination, she testified she did not give any thought to leaving the house with her son before Mr. Northrup returned home. On the record, this was not a situation where Ms. Featherstone did not have other options than to remain in the home. Her parents lived not far outside of Ottawa, about 45 minutes away. She was financially independent, earning more than Mr. Northrup. She had already been speaking with landlords, looking for a new residence. Instead of leaving in response to a life-threatening concern, she testified that after hiding the keys, she made dinner for her son, gave him a bath, and put him to bed. She did not know if Mr. Northrup was coming home, so she planned her night without him. She poured herself a glass of red wine and got into bed to watch television. She got ready to go to sleep. She described the evening as a normal night.

118On the evidence, I find how she behaved implausible in response to the level and seriousness of the threat she claims to have felt. Although I accept that she hid the keys to the safe – the fact that she hid the keys is not disputed by the defence or Mr. Northrup’s account – I find that she was not being truthful at trial in describing her fear and the level of danger she felt. This too leads me to have concerns regarding her credibility overall.

Ms. Featherstone’s account at trial about how she saw Mr. Northrup handle the gun is contradicted by what she told 911

119Ms. Featherstone testified in chief that after she handed Mr. Northrup the keys, he opened the white safe, placed the ring and bracelet inside, and took the keys to the gun safe. She testified that he opened the case, grabbed the gun with his left hand and the clip with bullets in his right hand. She repeated this description of what she saw Mr. Northrup do a second time at the instance of the Crown.

120She confirmed what she saw again on cross-examination. She testified on cross-examination that Mr. Northrup grabbed the gun and the ammunition. She had “absolutely” no doubt in her mind. She also testified on cross-examination that she had no doubt in her mind that she did not see him load the gun. She repeated that she did not see him load the gun. She saw him grab the gun with his left hand and the ammunition with his right hand. She was 100% clear that she did not see him load it and she could see it clearly at the time and she got a good look. She testified that while she did not have firsthand experience loading a magazine into the handle of a handgun, she was aware of what it looked like for a handgun to be loaded.

121But her evidence is inconsistent with what she told the 911 operator immediately after the alleged incident. On the call, she stated to the 911 operator that “I saw my boyfriend take out his gun; loaded it in front of me. He took his gun out of the safe, and he put the bullets in it.” She admitted on cross-examination that her earlier statement to the 911 operator was not consistent with what she testified to at trial. She maintained that her evidence at trial was the truth, rather than her 911 call. When pressed to explain the inconsistency, she could not explain what she was thinking or saying at the time of the 911 call. She stated that she was in panic mode.

122The prior inconsistent statement is on a core detail and leads me to doubt Ms. Featherstone’s account altogether. I do not accept that Ms. Featherstone could simply have been mistaken, due to panic, in stating to the 911 operator that she saw Mr. Northrup take his gun out of the safe and load it in front of her. She could not have been clearer in telling the 911 operator that he put the bullets in the gun. Rather, it leads me to have significant concerns that Ms. Featherstone is fabricating her account of what happened that night.

It is implausible that Mr. Northrup—a trained soldier who saw combat—would pick up a gun by his non-dominant hand and hold the clip in his other hand

123I find that Mr. Northrup was a trained soldier who saw considerable combat. He was trained and familiar with firearms. He is a right-handed shooter. I find Ms. Featherstone’s account that he held the gun in his left hand and the magazine with his right inconsistent with his training, and implausible. I accept Mr. Northrup’s evidence that he would not pick up a gun with his left hand unless he was wounded on his right side. I am not persuaded that his drinking that night would have overcome his training. While I do not place great weight on this, it nevertheless contributes to why I have a reasonable doubt.

Findings

Count 5: Uttering Threats – Boxing Day 2022

(a) The law of uttering threats

124The essential elements of uttering threats under s. 264.1(1)(a) are the utterance or conveyance of a threat to cause death or bodily harm; and an intent to threaten: R. v. McRae, 2013 SCC 68, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 931, at para. 9.

125The actus reus – or prohibited act – is established if the Crown proves that the accused uttered threats of death or bodily harm. The threats can be uttered, conveyed, or in any way caused to be received by any person. Whether words constitute a threat is a question of law to be decided on an objective standard – that is, from the perspective of a reasonable person: McRae, at para. 10. The objective standard must be applied in light of the particular circumstances of a case: McRae. at para. 11. As the Court of Appeal explained, “a reasonable person considering whether the impugned words amount to a threat at law is one who is objective, fully-informed, right-minded, dispassionate, practical and realistic”: R. v. Batista, 2008 ONCA 804, 238 C.C.C. (3d) 97, at para. 24.

126Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words written or spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, would the words convey a threat of death or bodily harm to a reasonable person?: see R. v. McCraw, 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72, at pp. 82-83.

127The starting point of the analysis is the plain and ordinary meaning of the words uttered. If the words clearly constitute a threat and there is no reason to believe that they had a secondary or less obvious meaning, no further analysis is required. But sometimes words that would on their face appear threatening may, when considered in context, not constitute threats within the meaning of the offence. The converse is also true. Context may reveal that words that would, on their face, appear relatively benign are in fact threats: McRae, at para. 11.

128The mens rea – or fault element – is made out if the Crown proves that the accused intended the threatening words uttered or conveyed to intimidate or to be taken seriously. The fault element is disjunctive: it can be established by showing either that the accused intended to intimidate or intended that the threats be taken seriously. It is not necessary to prove that the threat was uttered with the intent that it be conveyed to its intended recipient or that the accused intended to carry out the threat: McRae, at para. 18.

129The fault element is subjective. But to determine the accused’s subjective intent, “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”: McRae, at para. 23.

(b) Application to the facts

130As discussed, based on all the evidence, Mr. Northrup’s account of the December 2022 threat under Count 5 raises a reasonable doubt. As I also discussed, I do not find Ms. Featherstone to be a credible witness and I do not accept her account.

131On Mr. Northrup’s account, after they had put the children to bed after the police welfare check, he and Ms. Featherstone were discussing what could have elicited a heavy police response. He speculated that the police must have thought they were going to get into a gunfight, and that for them to attend in that way they would have needed to think he was suicidal or was going to kill Ms. Northrup or Ms. Featherstone. He was expressing a theory.

132Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, Mr. Northrup’s words would not have conveyed a threat to a reasonable person. He was simply speculating about what was in the mind of the police to generate the kind of response at the welfare check. On his account, the words were not objectively a threat.

133Although it is strictly unnecessary to consider the fault element, I also find that the Crown has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended his words to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

134Accordingly, I enter an acquittal on Count 5.

Events of March 2, 2023

(a) Count 3: Uttering Threats

135As discussed, Mr. Northrup’s account of events on March 2, 2023, raises a reasonable doubt. On his account, after Ms. Featherstone handed him the keys to the white fire safe, she said, “So what now? Are you going to shoot me?” He replied to her, “Kaylie, I’m not going to shoot you. I wouldn’t do that to the gun lobby.” Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, Mr. Northrup’s words would not have conveyed a threat to a reasonable person.

136Moreover, the Crown has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended his words to intimidate or to be taken seriously. To the contrary, he was responding to what he believed was a provocative comment, not a serious expression of fear. While he acknowledges his response was crude and inappropriate, I am left with a reasonable doubt that he had any intention to intimidate or for his words to be taken seriously.

(b) Count 2: Harassment

137To find Mr. Northrup guilty of criminal harassment, the Crown must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. That the accused engaged in threatening conduct directed at the complainant;

b. That the accused had no lawful authority to do what he did;

c. That the accused’s conduct harassed the complainant;

d. That the accused knew that his conduct harassed the complainant or was reckless or wilfully blind that the complainant was harassed;

e. That the accused’s conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety; and

f. That the complainant’s fear was reasonable in the circumstances.

See R. v. Krushel (2000), 2000 CanLII 3780 (ON CA), 142 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.).

138In this context, engaging in threatening conduct means to do something that, in all the circumstances and considering the effects those acts had on the complainant, would cause a reasonable person in the complainant’s situation to fear for her safety: R. v. Burns, 2008 ONCA 6, at para. 2; R. v. Sim, 2017 ONCA 856, 41 C.R. (7th) 416, at para. 19. The criminal act need not be a course of conduct. A single instance may be sufficient if the consequence is that the complainant is being harassed: R. v. Kosikar (1999), 1999 CanLII 3775 (ON CA), 138 C.C.C. (3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 15 and 20-22.

139An accused’s conduct will have harassed the complainant if, because of the threatening conduct, the complainant was in a state of being harassed or felt harassed in the sense of feeling tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically plagued, bedeviled and badgered: Kosikar, at para. 25. These words are not cumulative and are individually synonymous with the word “harassed”. Establishing any one of these can constitute harassment: R. v. Kordrostami (2000), 2000 CanLII 5670 (ON CA), 47 O.R. (3d) 788 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 11.

140Here, Mr. Northrup’s account leaves me with a reasonable doubt and I have rejected Ms. Featherstone’s account. On his account, he did not utter the words Ms. Featherstone alleged. His reply was, “Kaylie, I’m not going to shoot you. I wouldn’t do that to the gun lobby.” Nor, on his account, did he open the gun safe or remove the gun and clip.

141The Crown has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Northrup engaged in threatening conduct directed at Ms. Featherstone. His account leaves me with a reasonable doubt that he said or did something that, in all the circumstances and considering the effects those acts had on the complainant, would cause a reasonable person in the complainant’s situation to fear for her safety. On his account, while their argument was heated, it was not harassing. The Crown has not proved that Mr. Northrup uttered the words alleged, nor opened the gun safe and removed the gun and clip. I am also left with a reasonable doubt that he knew that his conduct harassed the complainant or was reckless or wilfully blind that the complainant was harassed.

(c) Counts 1 & 4: Using a firearm in the commission of an offence and careless use of a firearm

142Finally, I need only briefly address the remaining counts. On all the evidence, Mr. Northrup’s account leaves me with a reasonable doubt that the gun and the gun safe were in the principal bedroom on March 2. It leaves me with a reasonable doubt that he accessed and handled a gun and clip at all. The Crown has not established any of the elements of using a firearm in the commission of an offence nor the careless use of a firearm.

143Accordingly, I enter acquittals on the remaining counts.

Disposition

144In sum, I acquit Mr. Northrup on all counts.