R. c. Vaillancourt, 2011 QCCQ 2434 (CanLII)
[37] Les gestes reprochés, à savoir la visite dans l'entrée de la résidence des victimes et les deux messages laissés sur le site Facebook de l'accusé peuvent-ils être suffisant pour fonder l'accusation?
[38] La jurisprudence établi clairement que tel peut être le cas (R. c. Kosikar 1999 CanLII 3775 (ON C.A.), 1999 CanLII 3775 (ONCA), R. c. Ohenhen 2005 CanLII 34564 (ON C.A.), 2005 CanLII 34564 (ONCA), etc.).
[39] Un seul élément peut suffire, particulièrement dans le contexte où des événements antérieurs sont survenus qui colorent ou teintent les plus récents comportements.
[40] La Cour d'appel d'Ontario s'est exprimée ainsi dans l'arrêt Kosikar 1999 CanLII 3775 (ON C.A.), (1999 CanLII 3775 ON C.A.):
[27] This conclusion is enough to answer the question of law raised on this appeal. However, the peculiar facts of this case warrant one further comment. Here, the single incident constituting the threatening conduct is the sending of the letter
in January 1998. The evidence of the prior contact between the appellant and the complainant is used to prove that as a consequence, the complainant felt harassed. That prior contact is not an element of the offence. The fact that the complainant felt harassed as a consequence of receiving the letter is. Hence, this conviction is not a second conviction of the appellant for this prior contact.
[28] Moreover, while in this case the prior contact is important proof of the consequence caused to the complainant, it is possible to imagine a case where the complainant's feeling harassed would be proven not through the context of prior contact but by evidence of a single incident that carried the real future prospect of the continuing tormenting of the complainant. In other words, prior contact may not be the only way of proving the necessary consequence of a single act of threatening conduct.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire