SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2004 BCCA 28, Det. C had been investigation a break and enter involving Mr. S and his former girlfriend. Following this investigation, Mr. S left four messages on Det. C’s answering machine and five on the machine of his former girlfriend’s mother that were directed at Det. C that contained veiled threats. The trial judge did not find that Det. C was harassed because it was “not the repeated communication that led to this fear, but the content of the messages”. However, at the appellant level, the court found that the trial judge had combined considerations under 264(2)(b) – harassment for repeated communication – and 264(2)(d) – harassment caused by threats, which resulted an error in law.
A new trial was ordered.
 2003 BCPC 86 at para 12.
Criminal Offence(s): Criminal Harassment