SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2017 ONCA 602, Mr. B was convicted of an attempt to intimidate and breaching his probation. He had sent what the trial judge found to be aggressively worded text messages and had an in-person encounter with the victim that the trial judge interpreted as intimidating.
He appealed the decision. At the Court of Appeal the court held that there was no direct evidence that the purpose of the accused conduct was to intimidate or to compel the complainant to avoid being in pubic without fear. The court held that there were various reasons the accused could have texted beyond intimidation, for example, to annoy the complainant, and the trial judge had not explained why the purpose of the in person encounter would have been to intimidate. The appeal was allowed.
Criminal Offence(s): Intimidation