05/02/2020 2016 ONCJ 35 (CanLII) | CanLII The Charges Gregory Alan ELLIOTT, sometime between and including the 1st day of August in the year 2012 and the 20th day of November in the year 2012 in the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, knowing that Stephanie GUTHRIE is harassed, did repeatedly communicate directly or indirectly with Stephanie GUTHRIE thereby causing Stephanie GUTHRIE to reasonably, in all the circumstances, fear for her safety, contrary to the Criminal Code and further that Gregory Alan ELLIOTT, sometime between and including the 1st day of August in the year 2012 and the 20th day of November in the year 2012 in the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, knowing that Heather REILLY is harassed, did repeatedly communicate directly or indirectly with Heather REILLY thereby causing Heather REILLY to reasonably, in all the circumstances, fear for her safety, contrary to the Criminal Code and further that Gregory Alan ELLIOTT, sometime between and including the 1st day of August in the year 2012 and the 20th day of November in the year 2012 in the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region did being at large on his recognizance bound under section 810 entered into before a Justice and being bound to comply with a condition of that recognizance directed by the said Justice, fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition, to wit; Keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to the Criminal Code The Crime of Criminal Harassment Section 264 of the Criminal Code reads: 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 ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened (a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or (b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a). (5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision. The offence, as Parliament has defined it under section 264, is complex. The application of subsection (2) (b) is even more complex in relation to Twitter, in which communication with individuals directly and indirectly overlaps with communication with everyone using the service, and communication with everyone else using the service becomes indirect communication with individuals. I will first outline what the prosecution must prove. file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/R v Gregory Allan Elliott.htm 5/43