R. v. Sillipp (E.F.), (1997) 209 A.R. 253 (CA)

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Hunt and Berger, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: November 12, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 209 A.R. 253 (CA);1997 ABCA 346;[1998] 2 WWR 653;209 AR 253;55 Alta LR (3d) 263;11 CR (5th) 71;120 CCC (3d) 384;[1997] AJ No 1089 (QL);160 WAC 253;36 WCB (2d) 307;48 CRR (2d) 160

R. v. Sillipp (E.F.) (1997), 209 A.R. 253 (CA);

         160 W.A.C. 253

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. DE.031

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Erwin Franz Sillipp (appellant)

(Appeal No. 9503-0494-A)

Indexed As: R. v. Sillipp (E.F.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Hunt and

Berger, JJ.A.

November 12, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code. One count pertained to his ex-wife; the other to a patient and friend of his ex-wife. Following a jury trial, the accused was convicted for harassing his ex-wife, but acquitted on the second count. The accused appealed the conviction.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy - The accused was convicted of criminally harassing his ex-wife (Criminal Code, s. 264) - The accused had been previously found guilty of civil contempt for violating restraining orders to stay away from his ex-wife - The accused claimed that the criminal conviction violated his s. 11(h) Charter right not to be subjected to double jeopardy - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there was no violation of s. 11(h) - There was "no factual and legal overlap between the counts in the indictment and any prior contempt of court findings that might be embraced within the total facts" - See paragraphs 43 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1592 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1592

Criminal harassment - Intention or mens rea - An accused claimed that s. 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment) viol­ated his right to life, liberty and secur­ity of the person under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it per­mitted the morally innocent to be punished - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 264 did not violate s. 7 - Section 264 punished only those persons who engaged in spec­ified conduct with knowledge (or reckless­ness or wilful blindness) that such conduct caused the complainant to be harassed - The morally innocent escaped criminal liability - The court stated that "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" - See para­graphs 28 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 1594

Criminal harassment - Elements of offence - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "a proper charge to a jury in a criminal harassment case must include reference to the following ingredients of the crime, all of which must be proved beyond a reason­able doubt: (1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264(2)(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Criminal Code; (2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed; (3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the com­plainant was harassed; (4) It must be esta­blished that the conduct caused the com­plainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and (5) It must be established that the complainant's fear was, in all of the circumstances, reason­able." - The court reviewed the jury charge and held that it met this test - See paragraphs 10 to 19.

Words and Phrases

Lawful authority - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that "lawful authority", as found in s. 264 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, respecting the offence of criminal harassment, "means nothing more that rendering legally per­missible that which would otherwise be prohibited conduct" - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ryback (C.W.) (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 175; 117 W.A.C. 175; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. McCraw (1991), 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 517 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Nguyen - see R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen.

R. v. DeSousa (1992), 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 15 C.R.(4th) 66 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.) (1997), 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 322 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Grégoire (1980), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 542 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480; 70 N.R. 119; 45 Man.R.(2d) 93; 54 C.R.(3d) 97; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 1; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 724; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 35, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Van Rassel, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 225; 105 N.R. 103; 27 Q.A.C. 285; 75 C.R.(3d) 150; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63; 74 C.R.(3d) 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 42 Admin. L.R. 118; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Clement, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 468; 38 N.R. 302; 10 Man.R.(2d) 92; 23 C.R.(3d) 193; [1981] 6 W.W.R. 735; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 225; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 449; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 419, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Gralewicz et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 493; 33 N.R. 242; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 289; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 276; 81 C.L.L.C. 14,070, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 24 O.A.C. 321; 61 Sask.R. 105; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193; 28 Admin. L.R. 294; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 32 C.R.R. 219; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Koury, [1964] S.C.R. 212; 42 C.R. 210; [1964] 2 C.C.C. 97; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 637, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 2 O.R.(2d) 514; 25 C.R.N.S. 362; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (C.A.), red to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 58 C.R.(3d) 252; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 30 C.R.R. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McShannock (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 53 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Durante, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Drury (Ian) (1971), 56 Cr. App. Rep. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 264 [para. 10].

Counsel:

J. Watson, Q.C., for the respondent;

D.H. Christie, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 7, 1997, before Fraser, C.J.A., Hunt and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On November 12, 1997, Berger, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.