05/02/2020 2016 ONCJ 35 (CanLII) | CanLII An accused should face only one prosecutor, and a judge should never be seen to be aiding the prosecution’s case. To amend at this late stage could have an impact on the appearance of justice that is so crucial to every criminal proceeding, and that would cause an injustice. However, it would be appearance only, because there is no prejudice. And the perceived injustice is not related to the merits of the case, but the manner in which the amendment came about. The Criminal Code specifically provides for that, and directs me to amend. Had Mr. Elliott’s counsel pointed to one strategic decision or question on cross-examination, or one decision to call evidence that was different because recklessness was not alleged, I would not have allowed the amendment. But he did not because he could not; that is why there is no prejudice. So considering all the factors in s. 601(4), I amend the counts to add “or recklessly as to whether each complainant is harassed” after the word “harassed” and endorse the information according to s. 601(7). FACTUAL BACKGROUND @amirightfolks – Stephanie Guthrie Mr. Elliott’s interactions with Ms. Guthrie I begin with detailed reference to the communications only as needed to explain the background. Later, I will return to certain tweets that are alleged to be part of the criminal harassment. The interaction with Ms. Guthrie has three broad phases: the initial meeting and cooling off, then things taking “a bad turn” (in her words), and finally a period of no contact followed by tweets that led Ms. Guthrie to the police. Ms. Guthrie is a community activist and organizer. A main focus of her work and life is women’s interests, rights and safety. Twitter is an essential part of her life. She uses it to meet people who share her interests and contribute to the causes she works for and to obtain paying work for herself. She or others who were active with her created several hashtags. The important ones in this case are: #WiTOpoli – Women in Toronto Politics #DEPUparty – set up to discuss “deputing” to city councillors #AOTID – created for an Academy of the Impossible event #TBTB – Take back the block After she created the #WiTOpoli hashtag, Ms. Guthrie looked for a graphic designer for events that the WiTOpoli group was planning, particularly to design a logo and a poster. She tweeted the request and although that tweet is not in evidence, she believes that Mr. Elliott approached her through Twitter. They met for dinner at a restaurant on April 18, 2012. The dinner was affable. From the conversation at dinner, having only Ms. Guthrie’s recollection, one possibility is that Mr. Elliott was interested in a friendship or more. He persisted in asking to drive her home after she declined. There was some after-the-fact recolouring of this dinner by Ms. Guthrie, given what occurred later. She said she did not get a “great vibe” from Mr. Elliott, and his eyes made her feel “creeped out.” She felt uncomfortable as he repeatedly leaned across the table. She not only refused to accept a ride from him but would not accompany him to his car to look at a sample poster of his. So he went and got it. In any event, the dinner was unremarkable. It was about what it was supposed to be about, and happened well before the tweets began that gave rise to the charges. I dwell on it to provide context for the subsequent email and Twitter exchanges. Asked about another possible meeting, Ms. Guthrie could not recall it but did not say it didn’t occur. I also dwell on the aftermath of the dinner. This is not because their rapport was good at this time; good relations never preclude criminal harassment when things turn bad. It is because the email exchange provides information about how both Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Elliott write and express themselves, how Ms. Guthrie perceives and characterizes her own use of language, and how she absorbs and characterizes Mr. Elliott’s behaviour and language. Between dinner and the next morning, Ms. Guthrie learned that someone else in her group knew a graphic designer who needed work and was eager to help. She emailed Mr. Elliott, thanking him for meeting her at dinner and telling him that she was in love with his poster work and ideas. She thanked him for some gift and wrote that she really enjoyed the conversation. She said that she really looked forward to working with him. She asked if he would do the poster after the other person did the logo. She signed off with “Best, Steph.” file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/R v Gregory Allan Elliott.htm 16/43