DATE: 20000210 DOCKETS: C23193, C28591 and C30481 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CATZMAN, CARTHY and WEILER JJ.A. BETWEEN: DOCKET: C23193 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) (Respondent) ) and ) ) MELVIN KRUSHEL ) Daniel Kleiman and Paul Calarco, ) for the appellant Krushel (Appellant) ) ) The appellant Connors, in person ) and ) The appellant Grey, in person ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ) Gary Trotter and Laurie Lacelle, OF CANADA ) for the respondent ) (Intervener) ) Jeffrey Kehoe, for the intervener ) ) Marie Henein, Amicus curiae ) ) Heard: September 13-15, 1999 AND BETWEEN: DOCKET: C28591 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) (Respondent) ) and ) ) FABIAN MARTIN CONNORS ) ) (Appellant) ) ) and ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ) OF CANADA ) (Intervener) ) DOCKET: C30481 AND BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) (Respondent) ) and ) ) SEYMOUR GREY ) ) (Appellant) ) ) and ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ) ) (Intervener) ) ) ) The appellant Melvin Krushel appeals from the conviction imposed by Mullen J. on June 8, 1995 and from the sentence imposed by Mullen J. on January 24, 1996. The appellant Fabian Martin Connors appeals from the conviction imposed by Mitchell J. on August 6, 1997 and from the sentence imposed by Mitchell J. on November 3, 1997. The appellant Seymour Grey appeals from the conviction imposed by Blacklock J. on January 24, 1997. CATZMAN J.A.: The convictions and the sentences [1] All three appellants were convicted of criminal harassment under s.264 of the Criminal Code. That section provides, in relevant part: 264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling- house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family. (3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. . [2] The appellant Krushel was convicted of criminal harassment under s.264 by engaging in the conduct referred to in s.264(2)(c). The victim was his former common law spouse. He was sentenced to 90 days, to be served intermittently, and two years probation. [3] The appellant Connors was convicted of criminal harassment under s.264 by engaging in the conduct referred to in s.264(2)(b). The victim was his former wife. He was sentenced to 4 months and three years probation. [4] The appellant Grey was convicted of criminal harassment under s.264 by engaging in the conduct referred to in s.264(2)(b). The victim was a young girl, 12 years of age. He had served 127 days in pre-trial custody and was sentenced to one further day, and three years probation. The Charter Grounds [5] The appellants in all three appeals argued that s.264 of the Code contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We were urged to find that the criminal harassment section (also known as the anti-stalking law) infringed ss.2(b) and 7 of the Charter. For the reasons that follow, I would reject the appellants submissions regarding the alleged infringement of these sections of the Charter. (i) Section 7 [6] Counsel for Krushel submitted that s.264 infringed s.7 of the Charter for two reasons: first, that the section was impermissibly vague in that it fails to give sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited; and second, that it allows the morally innocent to be punished, specifically, in its failure to require that the accused have the intention to cause the victim to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them (the constructive liability argument). [7] The constructive liability argument was considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Sillipp (1997), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 384; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused May 14, 1998: [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 3 (Q.L.). In that case, as in this, the appellant argued that s.264 allowed the morally innocent to be punished because it lacked a mens rea requirement attaching to the consequence of reasonable fear. That court concluded that s.7 was not infringed by the provisions of s.264. At pp. 397-398, Berger J.A., speaking for the court, described the operation of the section in the following terms: In my view, the actus reus of the offence of criminal harassment is constituted by volitional subsection (2) conduct which meets discernible standards of nature, cause and effect, with the mens rea requirement being that of an intention to engage in that conduct or, at minimum, recklessness or wilful blindness, relative to that conduct. That which is prohibited is a person engaging in subsection (2) conduct with knowledge (reckless or wilful blindness) that such conduct is causing the complainant to be harassed. The mens rea of the offence is the intention to engage in the prohibited conduct with the knowledge that the complainant is thereby harassed. A conviction under s.264 requires that the accused have known that his subsection (2) conduct was causing the complainant to be harassed, or that he was aware of such risk and was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether or not the person was harassed. The Appellants morally innocent accused who honestly believed that his subsection (2) behaviour was not known to the complainant, and who was not reckless or wilfully blind, would escape criminal liability. [8] In the result, Berger J.A. concluded, at p. 399: The Appellants argument that it is a matter of constitutional necessity that the element of mental culpability be linked to the prohibited consequence of causing actual fear in the complainant is unfounded. Clearly Parliament has created a new kind of culpable activity subsection (2) conduct which, by objective standards (as described earlier in this judgment), is of a nature and extent as to reasonably cause fear. Such conduct is deemed by s. 264 to be criminal activity. Thus, in accordance with the principle set out in DeSousa (supra), given that there is in s. 264 a sufficiently blameworthy element in the actus reus to which the culpable mental state attaches, foresight of the prohibited consequence of causing actual fear is not required in order to hold the accused responsible for the results of his or her unlawful activity. [9] In reaching this conclusion, Berger J.A. noted (at pp. 396- 398) that the contention that there must be symmetry between mens rea and each consequence of an offence had been expressly rejected by McLachlin J. in R. v. Creighton (1993), 83 C.C.C. (3d) 346 (S.C.C.) and (at p. 399) that there need only be a sufficiently blameworthy element in the actus reus to which the culpable mental state attaches: R. v. DeSousa (1992), 76 C.C.C. (3d) 124 (S.C.C.). I agree with Berger J.A., and I would reject the constructive liability argument. [10] The argument that s.264 is impermissibly vague was not considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal. However, in an earlier challenge to s.264, the Alberta Court of Queens Bench rejected that argument: R. v. Sillipp (1995), 99 C.C.C. (3d) 394. In that proceeding, Murray J. dismissed an application to declare s.264 to be of no force and effect, finding, inter alia, that the section did not suffer from vagueness. His reasons on this point appear at p. 406: In my opinion, s.264 does not suffer from vagueness. Certainly there are many facets of it that will have to be interpreted by the court. I have no doubt that as time progresses it will be given a constant and settled meaning. I have no problem interpreting s.264 so as to understand that certain conduct is subject to legal restrictions and the area of risk is set out, namely, if you intentionally behave in certain ways knowing that by doing so you are harassing another person, then if your conduct causes that person to reasonably fear for his or her safety, you run the risk of being criminally sanctioned. I would think that anyone reading the section would receive that message loud and clear. I do not believe that it has the effect of permitting a standardless sweep so as to allow the police, or for that matter, the judiciary, to simply use its discretion in how they interpret it or apply its provisions which was the concern of Lamer C.J.C. in Morales, supra. I have listened to argument by Crown and defence counsel and I am satisfied that the legislation permits the framing of a meaningful legal debate with respect to the objectives contained in the legislation. In my view, it provides an adequate basis for reaching a conclusion as to its meaning by reasoned analysis applying legal criteria. [11] I agree with Murray J., and I would reject the appellants argument that s.264 violates s.7 because it is impermissibly vague. (ii) Section 2(b) [12] Counsel for Krushel further submitted that s.264 violates the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by s.2(b) of the Charter. In his submission, the behaviour criminalized under s.264 constitutes expression within the meaning of s.2(b), which extends to any expressive behaviour that attempts to convey meaning, including undesirable or offensive expression. Thus, besetting or watching a dwelling house for the purpose of conveying meaning is a protected form of expression regardless of the content of the meaning so expressed. [13] This s.2(b) argument, while not considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Sillipp, was canvassed by Murray J. in the judgment to which I have referred above. Murray J. found that s.264 did not infringe s.2(b) but that, if it did, it was saved by s.1. On the s.1 argument, Murray J. made an extensive analysis (at pp. 413-419) of the factors enunciated in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, and concluded (at p. 419): In the result, I am satisfied that the Crown has established on a preponderance of probabilty that such limit as has been imposed on the forms of expression set out in s.264 is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. [14] I am prepared to assume that the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by s.2(b) is engaged by the provisions of s.264. Having said that, I am reminded that the s.1 analysis permits a sensitive, case oriented approach to the determination of constitutionality [and that] not all expression is equally worthy of protection. Nor are all infringements of free expression equally serious.: Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232 at 246-247. In my assessment, the forms of expression said to be infringed by s.264 (which Murray J. described, accurately, at p. 413 as attempts by persons to convey meanings of latent physical violence and direct psychological violence to other persons) must be at the low end of the scale. It was this consideration that animated much of Murray J.s extensive analysis of s.1, and I agree with his conclusion, set out above, respecting the application of that section. The Non-Charter Grounds [15] In addition to the constitutional arguments, the appellants made submissions with respect to a number of other grounds of appeal. (i) Krushel [16] The first such submission made on behalf of Krushel concerned the admission of evidence of the appellants conduct from the period between May 1991 and November 1993, prior to the period specified in the indictment. The trial judge admitted that evidence for the sole purpose of showing the state of mind of the complainant during the period set forth in the indictment. [17] Counsel for Krushel submitted that the trial judge erred in admitting this evidence. I do not agree. Section 264(1) refers to conduct that causes the victim reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. Pre-charge conduct is admissible as going to the issue whether the complainants fear was reasonable in all the circumstances: R. v. Hau, [1996] B.C.J. No. 1047 (S.C.); R. v. Ryback (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 240 (B.C. C.A.), leave to appeal refused 107 C.C.C. (3d) vi; R. v. S.B., [1996] O.J. No. 1187 (Gen. Div.). The trial judge properly admitted the evidence for this purpose and properly instructed himself regarding the limited purpose for which it could be used. [18] Counsel for Krushel further argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the complainants fear was reasonable in all the circumstances. In his submission, Krushels conduct could not support the alleged fear of the complainant or, if the complainant did fear for her safety, her fear was objectively unreasonable. As an example, he suggested that the complainant had misinterpreted Krushels comment that if he went down, he would take her with him which, counsel suggested, referred to a civil suit between them. In a related submission, he argued that the verdict was unreasonable and was not supported by the evidence and, in particular, that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence in finding that the complainant feared for her safety and that Krushels conduct caused that fear. [19] The test applicable to the question whether a verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence is whether a judge or jury properly instructed and acting reasonably could have rendered the impugned verdict. In applying this test, an appellate court must re-examine and to some extent reweigh and consider the effect of the evidence that was before the trier of fact to determine whether it meets the test. While this rule applies equally to a verdict based on findings of credibility, an appellate court is obliged to show great deference to the findings of credibility made at trial. [20] Applying these principles to Krushels appeal, it is clear that neither of the submissions under consideration can succeed. Krushel engaged in a persistent course of watching and following the complainant. His statement that he would take the complainant with him was characterized as a threat by the trial judge. Even if one accepts that the complainant misunderstood the appellants comment, it cannot be said that her interpretation was not reasonable in all the circumstances. There was ample evidence to support the trial judges findings, and I see no basis on which to interfere with them. [21] The final submission of counsel for Krushel was that the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen the case after Krushel was convicted but prior to his sentencing. Krushel did not testify at the trial. After he was convicted, he applied to re- open the case to permit him to give evidence. In support, he deposed that he had wanted to testify, but that he had followed the advice of his trial counsel that he should not do so. One of the considerations behind trial counsels advice was a concern that the Crown might use a prior statement, made by Krushel during an examination for discovery in collateral civil proceedings, that he had at one time contemplated killing his wife. [22] The advice of trial counsel may or may not have been correct on the law as it stood at the time of Krushels trial: R. v. Kuldip (1990), 61 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (S.C.C.); Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 359 (C.A.). The current rule of civil procedure, which came into force after this trial, permits the use of evidence obtained on discovery in one proceeding to be used to impeach the testimony of the deponent in another proceeding: rule 30.1.01(6). [23] But the advice of Krushels trial lawyer was sound for another reason, that he also gave to Krushel. The evidence that Krushel sought to give, to which he testified on his motion to re- open, was to the effect that he had driven by or near the complainants home approximately 3 or 4 times a day in 1992 and 1993. At times, he used a video camera. He inspected her garbage at her home and at her office. He said that he had done all of this in an attempt to collect financial information about his wife that would demonstrate she had misrepresented her income when minutes of settlement were negotiated in family law proceedings between them. In his affidavit in support of the motion to re-open, Krushel deposed that his previous lawyer: expressed the opinion that my efforts to watch Ms. Morrisons home or workplace in the latter part of 1992 and the early part of 1993 prior to the period of the indictment (approximately 1,000 times or a few times a day on average) would be used by the learned trial judge, in relation to the criminal harassment charge, as evidence that I was obsessed with my ex-wife and intended to harass her by watching her. [24] In his reasons for refusing to reopen the trial, the trial judge observed that such relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. He noted that all of the evidence that Krushel sought to give had been known to him prior to the completion of the trial, that his decision not to testify had been a tactical one, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted reopening the trial. I agree. [25] On the appeal, Krushel sought to address fresh evidence in the form of voluminous further material in support of various complaints regarding his trial. In my view, none of this evidence should be received. All of it could have been adduced at the trial, and no explanation has been given why it was not proferred there. It does not bear upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue. It is not such that, if believed, could, when taken with the other evidence adduced at the trial, reasonably be expected to have affected the result. In short, it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of such evidence in this court. The motion to admit this evidence is refused. (ii) Connors [26] The first ground of appeal addressed by the appellant Connors in his submissions was that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his conduct from 1987 to August 1993. This ground of appeal fails. As noted above, pre-charge conduct is admissible as going to the issue whether the complainants fear was reasonable in all the circumstances. It may also be relevant to the issue whether the accused knew that, or was reckless whether, the complainant was harassed: R. v. Ryback, supra; R. v. Kosikar, [1998] O.J. No. 5558 (Gen. Div.), affd (1999), 178 D.L.R. (4th) 238 (Ont. C.A.). In my view, the evidence was properly admissible as relevant to the reasonableness of the complainants fear and to the appellants mental state. [27] Connors second ground of appeal related to the time frame covered by the indictment against him. The indictment alleged that he committed the offence of criminal harassment between January 1993 and March 1997, but the section creating the offence of criminal harassment was not proclaimed into force until August 1, 1993. I am satisfied that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice resulted from this error. There was abundant evidence of conduct between August 1, 1993 and March 1997 that supported the appellants conviction under s.264 and, as noted, evidence of his earlier conduct was admissible for the purposes I have indicated. [28] Connors third ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in failing to apply the correct standard of proof in finding him guilty. We were invited to find that the trial judge failed to consider the possibility of acquittal where the court disbelieves the testimony of the accused but is nevertheless left with a reasonable doubt by that testimony. This ground of appeal cannot succeed. In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated that he preferred the complainants evidence to the appellants evidence and that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge against the appellant was made out. Viewed as a whole, the reasons for judgment indicate that the trial judge neither believed the testimony of the accused nor was left with a reasonable doubt by that testimony. I am satisfied that the trial judge knew and applied the requisite standard of proof. [29] Connors final submission was that the verdict was unreasonable and could not supported by the evidence. This submission is completely answered by a reading of the transcript of the proceedings at trial, a copy of which was prepared and furnished to the court after the argument of these appeals had concluded and judgment had been reserved. It appears from the transcript that Connors had assaulted the complainant on several occasions during their relationship and that he was aware that she did not wish to have contact with him. There was ample evidence to support the trial judges findings that Connors was reckless as to whether his former wife was being harassed and that the complainant experienced fear that was reasonable in all of the circumstances. Viewed as a whole, the evidence was amply capable of supporting the verdict. (iii) Grey [30] The appellant Grey also submitted that the trial judges verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. Again, an examination of the evidence refutes this submission. While the trial judge found that he could put little weight on the testimony of the complainant, who was a young girl at the relevant time, he found the complainants mother to be a highly credible witness and he declined to accept the appellants explanation of events. These findings are supported by the evidence, which was amply capable of supporting the verdict. Sentence (i) Krushel [31] The appellant Krushel was sentenced to 90 days imprisonment to be served intermittently, followed by two years probation. He sought leave to appeal against his sentence, submitting that it was harsh and excessive having regard to all the circumstances and that this was an appropriate case for the sentence to be served in the community. In passing sentence, the trial judge took into account Krushels lack of remorse and the need for general and specific deterrence. He specifically noted that there was no violence involved and that the appellant was a first time offender. But Krushels conduct spanned a number of years and, indeed, part of it occurred during the currency of a peace bond. It had a dramatic effect on the lives of the victim and his children. This was not a case for a conditional sentence. I find no error in principle, and the sentence imposed is not manifestly unfit or clearly unreasonable. I see no basis to interfere with it. (ii) Connors [32] The appellant Connors was sentenced to four months imprisonment, followed by three years probation. He also sought leave to appeal against his sentence, submitting that it was harsh and excessive having regard to all the circumstances. In passing sentence, the trial judge emphasized the need for general and specific deterrence and Connors lack of remorse. He made no error in principle, and the sentence he imposed is not manifestly unfit or clearly unreasonable. I see no basis to interfere with it. Conclusion [33] I would dismiss the appellants appeals against conviction. I would grant leave to the appellants Krushel and Connors to appeal against sentence, but I would dismiss their sentence appeals. [34] On behalf of the court, I should like to express our gratitude to Ms. Marie Henein, who rendered considerable assistance with her fair and capable submissions as amicus curiae. Released: FEB 10 2000 Signed: M.A. Catzman J.A. I agree J.J. Carthy J.A. I agree K.M. Weiler J.A. |