RIGHT FROM YOU LITTLE LINK YOU SENT ME
Harassment
As to whether the conduct constitutes “harassment,” R. v. Sillipp (1995), 99 C.C.C. (3d) 394 (Alta. Q.B.), aff’d (1997), 120 C.C.C. (3d) 384 (Alta. C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 3 (QL), held at trial that harassment implies “being tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, being plagued, bedeviled and badgered.” This definition was accepted in R. v. Ryback (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 241 at 248 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 135 (QL); R. v. Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 181 (Qc. C.A.) (which held that “harass” can also signify the fact of “bothering someone with requests, solicitations, incitements ... which conveys rather well the idea that the conduct must have the effect of bothering someone because of its continuity or its repetition”); and R. v. J.G.T. (1999), 257 A.R. 251 (Q.B.), aff’d (2003), 320 A.R. 251 (C.A.). See also R. v. M.R.W., [
