Case Law Summaries- Criminal Harassment Charges

 

Case Law Summaries- Criminal Harassment Charges

1. 2012-03-08

R. v. Regula, 2012 ABPC 62 (CanLII) 

Judge: P.G. Sully

Background:

Ms. April Tetz (the Complainant) and the Accused met each other in 2005 in a young group, and they became acquaintances. In January of 2010, they became reacquainted and went on a few dates at the end of January through mid-February of 2010. On one occasion, they both argued and from that point, the Complainant knew that she wanted nothing to do with him again. 

History of Harassment:

The Accused immediately started sending messages indicating that they maintain contact with each other, and the Complainant indicated that she did not want to be his girlfriend. The Accused became very upset and continued sending messages. 

On February 20th, 2010, the Complainant jokingly sent a text to the Accused stating that one of her co-workers was her boyfriend and this made the Accused very upset, but when the Complainant noticed that he was angry, she apologized and he stated that she had hurt him. The Complainant decided that this was time to end this. 

Later that day, the Accused told the Complainant that he was going to kill himself and he was going to call her so she can listen to him die so that she would have to listen to it repeatedly. He sent pictures of himself holding a gun to his head and he also indicated that he was in his father’s home. The Accused was not picking up the Complainant’s call and she was concerned for his safety, so she called the Accuseds’ father who said that his son was not in his home.

On the 28th of February 2010, the Accused sent the Complainant several messages saying that he was going to walk to her home, that she killed him, and his blood is on her hands. He also sent pictures of himself holding a gun. 

The Complainant showed this to her brother and her brother called the Accused asking that he stop contacting the Complainant and the accused threatened to kill the brother. The Accused continued with the calls and on one occasion, he sent a message insulting her and that he had swallowed numbers of pills. 

The Complainant contacted the police and on the 28th of February 2010, the police warned the Accused to stop contacting the Complainant. They took him to the hospital, and he was released the next day. Later that day, the Accused still contacted the Complainant, and the Complainant contacted the police. 

The Accused was taken to the hospital again, where he called the Complainant to come and pick him up. She indicated that she cannot and he followed her up with 19 calls in the time of eight minutes, where she picked up once, and the Accused told her that she should be afraid because he was going to her. 

The Accused sent the Complainant 100 text messages. These messages included derogatory comments towards the Complainant. After more contact with the Accused, the Complainant contacted the police again, but the police were unable to arrest him. 

The Accused was still contacting the Complainant and even attempting to contact her through her roommate. The Complainant was now in fear of her safety and on the 7th of March, she received a message from the Accused stating that he was sorry and there was no further contact. The Accused was later arrested for a traffic violation and was charged with criminal harassment, where he pleaded guilty.

Conclusion:

The accused was sentenced to two years’ probation period and a suspended sentence. The Judge’s reasons for the decision are the little duration of the offense, the fact that there had been no resumptions of the harassment, the mitigation circumstances of the Accused, the Wall and Owens decisions and the contents from Dr. Zelkova’s F.A.C.S. report (that the Accused did not suffer from mental illness).

2. 1997-11-13

R. v. Meehan (W.G), 1997 CanLII 15977 (NL SC)

1998-01-05

R. v. Meehan, 1998 CanLII 13314 (NL SC)

Judge: L.D. Barry, J 

Background:

William Meehan and Bridget Tobin lived together for twenty-eight years until they separated. They had six children, of whom three had been living with their mother. 

During the time of separation, Ms. Tobin produced a three-exercise book on which she had written more than 600 occasions where Mr. Meehan would drive back and forth along the public road in front of her house. Although she stated that some of these entries were based on other individuals,  she also stated that most were based on her own observation. 

Harassment Details (Multiple Incidents):

On February 15, 1997, the son, Dion, called the police to the mother’s house after Mr. Meehan had repeatedly driven back and forth to Ms. Tobin’s house for about two hours. The police arrested Mr. Meehan at the scene, and he gave a statement saying that he did pass four to five times, not for Ms. Tobin, but because his son and others had thrown snowballs at his car and that he was looking for them. The police asked him how many times a day he usually drove past Ms. Tobin’s house and he told the police officer four or five times a day. 

The Crown presented evidence that Mr. Meehan on February 25, 1996, had a cardboard sign in his car window with the names “Ann and Paul” written on it. Ann, who is addressed as Ms. Tobin, and Paul, who was the father of his son’s friend who he usually sees visit her house. 

Another evidence was placed by the Crown of a cardboard left at the snowbank in front of Ms. Tobin’s house indicating that “I no you not home yet.” Mr. Meehan had an education only up to grade 6, so Ms. Tobin knew he was the one. 

Mr. Meehan’s daughter also testified to receiving letters from him, with the same spelling mistakes. Ms. Tobin’s sons also testify that Mr. Meehan drove past their house and turned around a short distance past the house and came back again slowly past the house and looked down at the house. Ms. Tobin described other instances, one of which she said that Mr. Meehan had shook his fist at her while she was at her clothesline, while he was driving. 

Before their separation, Mr. Meehan was convicted on two occasions for physically assaulting her. After the separation, Mr. Meehan breached the condition for probation order when he attempted to contact Ms. Tobin. The young man who stayed with Ms. Tobin testified that she was concerned about what Mr. Meehan would do next, and made sure she was never alone in her house. Her sons also testified to this. 

Conclusion: 

Mr. Meehan was charged with criminal harassment and was found guilty as charged. He was convicted and sentenced to nine months to be served in the community, with a three-year probation period of which condition that he should avoid all contact and communication with Ms. Tobin and avoid watching her.

3. 2002-01-03

R. v. Simms, 2002 CanLII 14769 (NL PC)

Judge: Gorman, P.C.J. 

Background:

Mr. Simms and Ms. Penny were married in 1989 and they had a son. Mr. Simms was convicted of assaulting Ms. Penny and he was placed on probation for a year, and they separated in October of 1998. 

From the evidence that led to the sentence hearing, Mr. Simms had not accepted the fact that they were separated. They later divorced in December of 1999. Previously, in September of 1998, Mr. Simms threatened to burn Ms. Penny’s house down and on September 3rd, 1998, Mr. Simms put his hands around her neck saying he was going to kill her, and if a man came to the house, he was going to kill him. 

Incidents of Harassment:

Over the next two years, Mr. Simms called Ms. Penny repeatedly and he would call her names. She eventually decided to stop answering the calls. Mr. Simms also used binoculars to watch her house and followed her around with his car. 

On March 8th, 2000, Ms. Penny went to her father-in-law’s house to drop off a hockey helmet and a pair of skates for her son and Mr. Simms approached her and started harassing her, so she refused to open her car door. Mr. Simms got back into his car and Ms. Penny went home. When she got out of the car, Mr. Simms parked his car next to her, and went over to Ms. Penny’s car and started banging the roof and the driver’s window. 

On May 2nd, 2000, Mr. Simms went to Ms. Penny’s house to see his son, but the son was not around. Ms. Penny’s mother was around, and he told her that her daughter was a drug addict. He proceeded to the park where Ms. Penny went to pick up her son and tried blocking her, but she made a U-turn and left. 

He called later, saying that she should never pull a U-turn on him again, saying that the next time, his car brakes might not work. At approximately 9:00 pm that evening, Ms. Penny’ s son was looking for his fishing rod and asked who was in the house, and he also wanted to know whose truck was in the driveway. It was Mr. Simms.

On May 4th, 2000, Ms. Penny and her friend were at the store and when they were leaving, they noticed that Mr. Simms’ car was parked next to them. He came to Ms. Penny, and stated that she ripped him off $2,800.00 and that he wants his money back. He blocked the exit with his car because Ms. Penny was able to leave.

Conclusion:

As Mr. Simms had already been convicted previously, he was charged with criminal harassment and sentenced to Five months of incarceration and a three-year probation period upon the expiration of the period of incarceration. There were conditions to this probation, some of which included that he was to keep peace and good behavior, and he was to abstain absolutely from any contact or communication with Ms. Penny, unless it involved their children. The reason for this sentence was to create a safe and danger free environment from Ms. Penny, as Mr. Simms had constituted danger to Ms. Penny even in public.

4. 2016-08-26

R. v. House, 2016 CanLII 55650 (NL PC)

Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.

Background:

On July 4, 2015, while Mr. Charles House was at work, Mr. House, who happens to be his son, entered his father’s residence by kicking in the back door. He stole several cheques and $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 in jewelry. 

Mr. House forged his father’s name on the back of the cheques and deposited them into people’s bank accounts in exchange for reimbursement and the cheques were in the amount of $700.00. He was arrested on September 6th, 2015 and released the following day on an undertaking containing the condition that he would not have contact with his father or contact with his father’s residence. 

Mr. House continued going to his father’s residence to ask him for money for transportation to purchase drugs. This made Mr. Charles scared and harassed and he told the police. Mr. House was arrested on March 28, 2016, and he was kept in custody. He has nine previous convictions and these convictions are for the offences of assault, one of which he had sexually assaulted a girl. 

Conclusion:

Mr. House was charged with offenses of breach of undertaking, criminal harassment, break and entry into a dwelling-house, and forgery. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a period of eighteen months of imprisonment, followed by twelve months of probation with conditions, which include keeping peace and abstaining from communicating, directly and indirectly, with any victim, witness or other person identified in the order. 

5. 2018-03-20

R. v E.C. & D.P. 2018 CanLII 14036 (NLPC)

Judge: Gorman J

Background:

Mr. DP and Ms. HY were in a relationship and they had a child together, but they separated. Ms. HY applied and received an order of child support. Shortly after that, Mr. DP and Ms. EC started harassing Ms. HY. 

History of Harassment:

Mr. DP and Ms. EC were in a relationship and they had a child together. Ms. HY was receiving harassment from both Mr. DP and Ms. EC, because when she applied for child support, Mr. DP’s wages were attached. They would call her names such as “thief” and “bum.” 

On a continuous basis, Mr. DP and Ms. EC would stop their vehicle when they saw Ms. HY and call her names like “slut”. Additionally, Ms. EC would use her car’s high beam lights to harass Ms. HY. 

This continued to persist over a long period of time and even though Ms. EC had never been directly involved with Ms. HY, she was aware about Mr. DP’s and Ms. HY’s previous relationship, and assisted Mr. DP in intimidating Ms. HY.

Conclusion:

Mr. DP and Ms. EC were both charged with criminal harassment and sentenced accordingly; Mr. DP was sentenced to a period of five months of incarceration, followed by two years of probation, while Ms. EC was sentenced to a period of four months of conditional imprisonment, followed by two years of probation.