05/02/2020 2016 ONCJ 35 (CanLII) | CanLII Mr. Elliott replied later in the afternoon. He declined the suggestion that he do only the poster, saying that one person should do both the poster and the logo. He described his efforts that day to price the poster and asked her to let him know what her group decided, as if the issue were still open. He signed his email: “Love.” Ms. Guthrie replied within three hours. She told Mr. Elliott that he was “too kind” and “awesome” and that his view that the same person should do both poster and logo made sense. She suggested a competition and asked for a week to decide. She signed with an “x” and an “o”, meaning a kiss and a hug respectively. This did not meet with Mr. Elliott’s liking. He declined to compete with the other designer. He said that since he was offering his work for free, a competition was almost as bad as two designers working on one poster. Mr. Elliott wrote: “Competing also means I may put a lot of time into something that helps no one if it isn’t selected for ‘political’ reasons :-).” This last punctuation is common enough for me to take notice that it depicts a little face with a smile, a smiley face. He asked her to discuss his idea and concerns with her group and signed off with “Love.” The next day, April 20, Ms. Guthrie answered that her group had decided to use the other artist. She was strongly complimentary to Mr. Elliott. She said she appreciated his time and offered to credit him for his creative contribution. She apologized that it didn’t work out for him, and thanked him for his “enthusiasm for and support of Women in #TOpoli”. Mr. Elliott replied politely, saying, “Maybe next time,” and signed his email, “Love.” There the exchange briefly concluded; it restarted three days later. It can be inferred that Mr. Elliott contacted Ms. Guthrie because she thanked him for firing things up again and said that she would like to work together if they could. She suggested an idea; he accepted. She said “awesome” and then he said “ok”, now signing “Greg.” Later that night she sent him some proposal, and their interchange ended peacefully and normally on April 24. The emails were not the only communication. There was a continuous Twitter relationship of sorts, insofar as Twitter lends itself to being described in those terms, starting in February 2012. Det. Bangild’s Sysomos search for tweets sent by Mr. Elliott and Ms. Guthrie show that from February until April both were using the other’s handles in tweets, either at the beginning of a tweet to direct it to the other, or as mentions that the other would also see. In some series of tweets a direct exchange between them can be identified – not of direct messaging but of one beginning a tweet with the other’s handle. In one instance in February 2012, both Mr. Elliott and Ms. Guthrie tweeted putting the other’s handle at the beginning of the tweet. Mr. Elliott joined a discussion that was in progress and commented on the political significance of the use of a certain type of language, and Ms. Guthrie responded in a civil manner. Given Ms. Guthrie’s testimony that Mr. Elliott approached her by Twitter about doing a poster and Det. Bangild’s evidence that he searched for tweets from one to the other, I infer that the February exchange in 2012 was the beginning of their interaction. Mr. Elliott, a stranger, joined a conversation that he saw on Twitter and Ms. Guthrie engaged. The exchange was polite. So was the email exchange from April 20 to April 24 that I have reviewed above. Ms. Guthrie testified that she was lying to him when she called him kind and awesome, but the exchange was civil. On May 3, 2012, Mr. Elliott “fired things up again,” to use Ms. Guthrie’s words. Their exchange on Twitter is partly reflected in the tweets that are before the court – Ms. Guthrie agrees that there may have been direct messages that are not among the tweets that Det. Bangild discovered. Mr. Elliott had suggested ideas for Ms. Guthrie’s group’s meetings, and she had replied positively. In the meantime, though, Ms. Guthrie had researched some of Mr. Elliott’s tweets. She concluded that opinions he had expressed showed that his philosophy was not compatible with her organization and that they could not use his skills. Around that time, a news story was published in Toronto about a reporter who went to the Mayor’s house. A Twitter exchange between Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Elliott concerned Mr. Elliott using a word, either “sissy” or “pussy”, that suggested the reporter was a coward. The tweet is not in evidence, and Ms. Guthrie cannot remember the word, which she said offended her. However, that episode ended civilly also. Ms. Guthrie testified that she thought Mr. Elliott a “creep” at their dinner in April 2012, that there was a seething anger to his emails about the artwork and that she knew from research that he had sexually harassed women, which was part of the reason she stopped him from file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/R v Gregory Allan Elliott.htm 17/43