Case Of Section 264 Of The Criminal Code Of Canada

Section 264 of the criminal code of Canada focuses on Criminal Harassment. The section undoubtedly outlines the prohibited conduct, punishment and factors for the crown to consider before laying charges on the accused. The criminal code defines criminal harassment as unlawfully engaging in a manner towards a person that makes them fear their safety, whether that be through following a person, communicating directly or indirectly or engaging in threatening conduct towards that person. Depending on the circumstances of the case the accused could be either be punished on a summary conviction or an indictable offence with a prison sentence exceeding no more than ten years. To convict a person of criminal harassment the crown must prove Mens rea and the courts shall consider aggravating factors at the time of the offence to find

Which outlined the telephone communications as criminal harassment (R. v. Scuby). The 2010 case of R. v Eltom was used to contribute to section 264 (c) of criminal harassment. On May 6th the appellant Samir Eltom was charged with criminal harassment, after his continuous visits to Taco Bell where the complainant Shahla Mehr-Rafie worked. She testified to the crown that she feared her safety after Mr. Eltom made numerous attempts at contacting her both directly and indirectly (R. v. Eltom). The case of R. v Eltom played a vital role in section 264 (c) as it relates to stalking someone’s residence, workplace or any other place an individual may be present for any purpose. This case also cleared up what constitutes as legally watching, The criminal code states merely looking, smiling or standing alone without any specific intent does not equal stalking under this section. Finally, the 2005 case of R. v Ohenhen determined what counted as "repeated" communication. The facts of the case are as follow, in 1990 the complainant and the appellant Mr. Ohenhen met for the first time at CNE where the appellant took the complainant’s number. After that