R. ex rel. Bell v. Stroud, 2011 ONCJ 123

File No. 1264/10 Citation: R. ex rel. Bell v. Stroud , 2011 ONCJ 123 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE On the Information of KATHY BELL v. RITA STROUD P R O C E E D I N G S A T S E C T I O N 8 1 0 H E A R I N G BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE B. FORSTER on February 3, 2011, at OWEN SOUND, Ontario

APPEARANCES : P. Leger Counsel for the Crown J. Gamble Counsel for Rita Stroud THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2011 R E A S O N S F O R R U L I N G FORSTER, J.P. (Orally): I did review my notes on the evidence that was presented to the court. This application for a peace bond, as it is commonly called, indicates that Kathy Bell fears on reasonable grounds that Rita Stroud will cause personal injury to or will damage the property of Kathy Bell and her children, Trinity Bell, Hunter Bell, Savannah Bell, and Destiny Bell.

There was nothing in the evidence that I heard that gave any suggestion that there were any overt threats to cause injury or to damage the property of any member of the Bell family. Essentially, what I heard is that Ms Stroud, in the course of using the public road that the Bells live on, has made efforts to engage the Bells in conversation; has made friendly overtures towards the Bells. The cause of concern raised by Mr. and Mrs. Bell is that Ms Stroud drives down their road too often and stops too frequently near their house and they are bothered by this.

Whether it is reasonable for them to be fearful of that behaviour is the question I had to determine. There’s been no dispute about the evidence given by the bus driver and by Mrs. Bell that Ms Stroud has mobility limitations, and that is why she uses her car to walk her dog. The video showed her car travelling slowly along the road with the dog trotting alongside. I had to consider that her periodic stops along the road could logically be explained by Ms Stroud pausing to let her dog rest, to sniff at things along the way—dogs are likely to want to do that—or for the dog to relieve itself.

The evidence that I heard that Mrs. Bell indicates she was fearful that Ms Stroud would try to make contact with her children, and based that fear on the repeated driving past the house to walk the dog, stopping near their house for periods of time, describing the lengths of the stops as a couple minutes, and at the most, 20 minutes, but, certainly, concern about the frequency and the indication that to them it appeared the frequency had increased. Mrs. Bell indicated that on one or two occasions Ms Stroud spoke to her children. Mrs.

Bell suggested that Ms Stroud could snatch one of the children, similar to what happened to Tori Stafford, and to me, I believe that’s a very unreasonable assessment of what Ms Stroud’s behaviour suggests. Ms Stroud did not persist in attempting to make contact with the Bell children after she was told by Mrs. Bell that she didn’t want the children to think it was okay to talk to strangers. So is there really a fear that the children will be physically harmed?

On all the evidence I heard, I cannot believe that the Bells actually fear their children will be harmed physically by Ms Stroud, and even if they did, I don’t believe it is a reasonable fear in all of the circumstances. Mrs. Bell did not say she feared that she would be physically harmed, either. When asked if she was concerned for her safety, she said not really physically, but emotionally it’s traumatizing, and that it interferes with her work as an author.

As far as the children being afraid for their safety while waiting for the bus, although it’s a limited view of them, their demeanour on the video does not display the type of fear that was suggested, and, in fact, Mrs. Bell told the court that the children describe Ms Stroud as creepy, but they didn’t really fear her. Mr. Bell described his children as being so afraid to be seen through the windows of the house that they clung to the walls. That seems to be quite a different version of how the children feel, and to me, seems to be an intentional exaggeration of concerns. Mr.

Bell described Ms Stroud as a very pleasant, friendly person; said she was quite a storyteller. And although he may not want to be friends with her, he is clearly not afraid of her. And in his final response to Mr. Leger when asked, “How does the behaviour of Ms Stroud make you feel”, Mr. Bell said he fears psychological damage to his wife and children. He did not express a fear that they would be physically harmed or that there would be damage to their property. I was not able to find any case law that would support the conclusion that

Section 810 applications are intended to address a fear of psychological harm, and I’m not satisfied that the evidence presented in this hearing would support that conclusion. To conclude a fear of psychological harm is reasonable, it might, in my view, require expert evidence, and to draw conclusions on that issue, I’d have to have much more evidence to support it. So as a result, I’m not satisfied that any fear of personal injury or property damage is reasonable, and a recognizance will not be ordered as a result. MR. LEGER: Thank you, Your Worship. MS GAMBLE: Thank you, Your Worship. THE COURT: Thank you. C O U R T A D J O U R N E D

FORM 2 Certificate of Transcript Evidence Act , Subsection 5(2) I, Susan Griffin, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of Kathy Bell and Rita Stroud in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 611 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, taken from Recording No. 102-020-2011 which has been certified in Form 1. ____________________ _________________________ Date Susan Griffin Transcript Ordered: ____________________________ Transcript Completed: __________________________ Ordering Party Notified: _______________________