Criminal Harassment

Criminal Harassment Memo

Thoughts on Sillipp and related harassment Cases

I was able to look up a number of cases that cited Sillipp, and based on that have some thoughts on arguments that the offence of criminal harassment isn’t made out on the facts.
R. v. Sillipp 1997 ABCA 346

Sillipp read 264(1) to mean that criminal harassment is established when the crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the defendant engaged in conduct described in 264 (2) (a-d) b) Victim was harassed c) intention can be established by knowledge, recklessness, or wilful blindness, d)the conduct caused V to fear for her safety e) V’s fear was reasonable
Mens Rea- Delusion?
Sillipp seems to be the foundational case for Criminal Harassment. In my earlier input into this case, I had suggested using the lack of mens rea as an argument, but case law seems scant on this point. In fact there is an actual case (R. v. Crook [2015] O.J. No. 5849 2015 ONCJ 627) where the judge rejected a psychologist’s testimony that the defendant was delusional and believed himself to be in love (Although in that case the crown prosecutor and the amicus curae-the accused was self represented-urged the judge to not take into account the psychologist’s testimony )
This may be useful for us, however. In Crook, the judge, after accepting the crown and the A.C’s suggestion to disregard the psychologist’s testimony, went on to consider whether mens rea was established regardless. In this case, it wasn’t because 1)the delusion was limited to another facet of the case and 2)the delusion did not properly explain Mr. Crook’s actions
20 First, the delusions identified by Dr. Van Impe are limited to the belief that Lisa and Brent were not the parents of the children living with them and that Lisa might ultimately enter into a relationship with Mr. Crook. These delusions do not extend to a belief that the Aube children had been abducted, although the suggestion of abduction is either explicit or implicit in the Abduction Communications. Absent that feature as part of Mr. Crook’s identified delusions, his references to abduction is an act naturally resulting in significant perturbation on the part of the Aubes and cannot be excused as part of any fixed and false set of beliefs.
21 Second, Ms. Ross and Mr. Jim point out that Mr. Crook, if the sender, went to some lengths to disguise his identity, posing, for example, as a concerned parent of another child, as a police officer, and as a Toronto Star reporter. As Ms. Ross put it in Exhibit 31, “had he truly wanted to ensure the safety of abducted children, he could and should have marched into a police station or CAS office”. Assuming Mr. Crook sent the Abduction Communications, his surreptitiousness in doing so would undercut the concern which I initially entertained that Mr. Crook was, from his delusional perspective, merely engaging in an exposure of the Aubes as wrongdoers. I accept from counsel’s submissions that Mr. Crook, as sender, perceived that the sending of the Abduction Communications was wrong. Moreover, even if Mr. Crook were incapable of an appreciation of the culpability of each consequence of the sending of the Abduction Communications, so long as the Crown proves mental culpability in respect of the sending itself, mens rea is established: R. v. DeSousa, [1992] S.C.J. No. 77 (S.C.C.); R. v.Krushel, [2000] O.J. No. 302 (O.C.A.).
Harassment
There is a case to be made that the complainant wasn’t harassed in this case. It is important to note that 1-criminal harassment is a high threshold.

R. v Alvarez-Gongora, 2014 ONCJ 712,
42 For the complainant to have been harassed or to have felt harassed, it is not enough for the complainant to have been “vexed, disquieted or annoyed”. To have been harassed means to have been “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”. I note that these terms are not cumulative. It can be enough for harassment if any one of these terms is established.
It is useful to look at some cases where criminal harassment has been found. We can argue that Mr. Khedr’s behavior isn’t similar.

R. v. Yannonie [2009] A.J. No. 121 2009 ABQB 4 467 A.R. 336

29 The evidence in Sillipp disclosed the following actions on the part of the Accused:
• – the Accused frequently drove past and parked near the home and office of the first complainant (his ex-spouse) and the apartment of the second complainant;
• – the Accused frequently followed the first complainant’s vehicle for short distances and swerved at her vehicle on one occasion;
• – the Accused followed the second complainant’s vehicle for short distances as well;
• – the Accused followed the complainants through several specific locales in St. Albert and Edmonton;
• – the Accused followed the second complainant to the Edmonton International Airport where she was to pick up the first complainant from an incoming flight.

R. v. R.G. [2001] Y.J. No. 12 2001 YKSC 2

51 The point is that conduct which causes a complainant to be “vexed, disquieted or annoyed” is not sufficient. The complainant must be “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered.”
52 It is clear from the evidence of M.O., Olga Anderson and Bruce Webber that M.O. was harassed. She was fearful and in a state of agitation that caused her to run for several blocks to find a safe haven. Constable Letendre, who attended at the 4050 Fourth Avenue apartment, described M.O. as very scared, anxious and talking quickly. In short, she was not annoyed, but rather, she was tormented, troubled and badgered.
R. v. P.R.B. [1999] A.J. No. 1589 1999 ABPC 158 263 A.R. 90

16 Ms. L.B. described the effect of the defendant’s actions on her and her family in the following words:
I live with my parents. We are fearful for our safety; we’ve had a security system installed in our house. We don’t even feel comfortable going into our back yard without looking over our shoulders. I’m constantly looking in my rear view mirror when I’m driving. It’s a very uncomfortable situation to say the least and I’m fearful for my safety. Like I said, he’s very unpredictable and I just don’t know what to expect next.
Looking at the totality of the defendant’s conduct, including the content of his voice-mail messages, and accepting the foregoing evidence, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the complainant was indeed harassed.

2-This is related to the requirement that the victim must fear for her safety or someone else close to her. Either proving lack of fear or lack of harassment is good enough, both seem to rely on similar criteria.

R. v. Raymond [2014] Q.J. No. 2193 2014 QCCQ 1833

36 But here, the evidence only shows the complainant was on stress or on edge. She was uncomfortable. She did not have peace of mind.
38 The Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the accused caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her.
A case where fear wasn’t found.

R. v. Hnatiuk [2000] A.J. No. 545 2000 ABQB 314

41 However, as was pointed out in Sillip, in order to convict an accused of criminal harassment, it is not enough to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct troubled or badgered the complainant, the court must also be satisfied that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her and the fear must, in all of the circumstances, be reasonable.

42 The evidence in this case fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Haavaldsen reasonably feared for her safety. In fact, the evidence does not establish that Ms. Haavaldsen feared for her safety. Indeed, when the worst of the conduct occurred, which was the threat which occurred during the mediation, the Haavaldsens decided to continue with the mediation. When the mediation was unsuccessful, the Haavaldsens continued with their life, as before. The evidence establishes that they were annoyed by the Hnatiuks, but they were not in fear of them. Ms. Haavaldsen testified, for example, that she continued to go outside, continued to tend her garden, continued to meet her children, continued to walk her dog, etc. Ms. Hnatiuk has argued that the Haavaldsens “gave as good as they got”; the evidence may not go that far, but certainly the evidence establishes that the Haavaldsens were not in fear of the Hnatiuks.
2-Multiple cases stress that to establish criminal harassment, it is necessary to examine the background and context and the details of the relationship.

R. v Alvarez-Gongora, 2014 ONCJ 712,

44 When the Court is considering whether the elements of the offence have been made out, the approach is a contextual one. It is a question of fact for the Court to determine in each case. The Court must consider the conduct that is the subject of the criminal harassment charge against the background of the relationship and the history between the complainant and accused.

R. v. P.M.B. [2011] B.C.J. No. 2499 2011 BCPC 370

10 In order to examine whether the elements of the offence are made out, the court must look beyond the letters and their content and examine the context in which they were written.
Misc

R. v. Wease [2008] O.J. No. 1938 78 W.C.B. (2d) 381

29 The trial judge acknowledged that Mr. Wease did not actually know Mrs. Wease considered herself harassed. (might have some utility for us) Having acknowledged this, however, the trial judge found that the appellant was, at the very least, reckless or willfully blind, “in my opinion, and I think clearly willfully blind in this matter.” He points out that in the appellant’s testimony he made it clear that he, “just didn’t care what effect his actions would have upon the complainant”, and in the trial judges opinion that, “clearly amounts to an admission of willful blindness and by his very acts, I think, he can also be taken to be reckless as to whether or not Mrs. Wease was harassed. Therefore, the third essential element has also been established beyond a reasonable doubt in this matter.”
30 The evidence, however, must be taken in context and it is my view that it does not support such a finding.

R. v. Davis [1999] M.J. No. 477 143 Man.R. (2d) 105

Talks about subjective and objective fear

R. v. Pringle [1999] O.J. No. 3704 43 W.C.B. (2d) 487 No. 982384

14 In the case at bar, the “proscribed conduct” is that specified in para. 264(2)(b) of the Code, to wit, “repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them”. Within the charge period, there are 2 written communications, eligible for consideration (Exhibits #1 and #3). I have considered all of the evident pre-charge period conduct of Accused toward Complainant, and find it to amount to no more than non-criminal “workplace harassment” (might have some utility, seem to be different kind of harassments), as between co-employees, notably weird and eccentric behaviour, but not manifestly “criminal” nor “threatening”.