R. v. Louis Date:, 2013 BCPC 346

Citation: R. v. Louis Date: 20130725 2013 BCPC 0346 File No: 193664 - 1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. RODERICK VALENTINE LOUIS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE Counsel for the Crown: A. Ip Appearing in person: R. Louis Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: June 17, 18, July 16, 17, 2013 Date of Judgment: July 25, 2013

[ 1 ] This is an application under s. 810(1) of the Criminal Code for an order that Roderick Louis be placed on a recognizance. The purpose of s. 810 is preventive rather than punitive. In order to obtain an order the Crown must prove on the balance of probabilities that Karen York has reasonable grounds to fear and does fear that Mr. Louis will cause personal injury to her by virtue of an incident that occurred on or about October 8, 2011. [ 2 ] This case raises the issue of whether there can be reasonable grounds to fear personal injury in the absence of violence or threats of violence.

The Crown argues that personal injury includes psychological harm and that Mr. Louis’ unpredictable, harassing behaviour provides reasonable grounds for Ms. York to fear that he will cause her personal injury. Mr. Louis replies that Ms. York does not actually fear him.

He believes she is misusing s. 810 to obtain an unnecessary restraining order, and that her actions form part of a campaign by some members of Strata Council (“Council”) to force him out of the building where both live because of his opposition to various Council decisions and involvement in lawsuits against the strata corporation. [ 3 ] I will first describe the background facts that provide the context in which the evidence must be assessed, then explain my assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and reliability, and then outline my findings of fact.

I will next deal with the subjective test; that is, whether Ms. York actually fears Mr. Louis will cause personal injury to her; and finally with the objective test of whether she has reasonable grounds to fear him. Background Facts [ 4 ] The evidence in the hearing establishes the following background facts. Mr. Louis and four Crown witnesses live in the same condominium building. He has occupied unit 206 fulltime since 2006. In 2009 the B.C.

Court of Appeal decided that he was an “unregistered legal owner” of the unit he occupies although he was not an owner under the Strata Property Act , based on the Court’s understanding that the registered owners of the unit were Mr. Louis’ brother, Tim Louis and his sister, Nancy Kirk as executor of his mother’s estate, and that Ms. Kirk had provided Mr. Louis with a land property transfer form for a half interest that he had never registered ( “The Owners” Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis, 2009 BCCA 54 at para. 11 ). [ 5 ] Mr. Louis engages in unusual behaviour.

During the hearing he asked leave to stand rather than sit at the counsel table because he feels less anxious when standing than when sitting, and he has stood during strata meetings and a police interview. He testified that he doesn’t feel comfortable when people are within six feet of him. He goes for long runs at 4:00 a.m. He makes a daily tour of the entire condominium building to conduct an inspection and “see what’s what.” He keeps track of the times at which some residents leave for work. He listens to private conversations at people’s doors.

He spends considerable time in the basement parking garage although the car he keeps there hasn’t been licensed or moved for the last 6 years and he does not appear to work on it. He is perceived by other residents of the building to use the common amenities/recreation room as his own, spending considerable time there engaged in activities including preparing meals, eating, washing his hair, sitting on the floor, and using common electricity by plugging in his computer. [ 6 ] Mr. Louis has had numerous disputes with the building’s Strata Council (“Council”), many focusing on their differing views about Mr.

Louis’ rights to be informed of and participate in Council decisions, Council’s duties, and whether Mr. Louis’ use of common property amounts to misuse and abuse. He appears to do extensive research, reach a conclusion about what Council should or should not do, and then act relentlessly and persistently to have Council do what he has concluded is required. [ 7 ] Mr. Louis testified that he is a chess player: he has dealt with far bigger bureaucracies than the Strata Council, and if he does not achieve his goal by diplomatic means, he will find another route.

For example, he tried without success for two years to get Council to post what he considered to be its correct by-laws based on the 2009 Court of Appeal decision, and to provide them to condo buyers. When he had had enough of asking politely he stood at the front door of the building during an open house held to attract buyers to the unit of Karen Clarke, a Crown witness, handed people a package of “the correct bylaws,” and told them about a leak in the basement. He gave Ms. Clarke’s realtor the Court of Appeal decision and ensured she knew about the leak. At one point during his testimony Mr.

Louis justified his conduct by saying his motivation was to avoid the Strata Council being sued for misrepresentation by an unhappy buyer, but he offered this as an example of “taking another route” and it is clear that this was a tactic designed to force Council to do as he wished, even though Ms. Clarke may not have been on Council at the time [ 8 ] The issues about which he and Council members have disagreed include but are not limited to the following: • On advice from its management company, Council refused to give Mr.

Louis copies of meeting minutes and financial statements because he was not a registered owner. His brother receives the information as a registered owner. Mr. Louis believes he is entitled to receive this information directly. • On advice from the management company, Council refuses to permit Mr. Louis to vote at Strata meetings because he is not a registered owner, and refuses to accept a “General Proxy” document he has tendered. Mr. Louis insists the document gives him the right to vote.

• His regular use of the electric garage door instead of the pedestrian door nearby when entering or leaving the garage on foot. Council had to replace a

part in the door due to wear and Council members thought unnecessary use of wasted electricity; so they decided to prohibit pedestrians from using the electric door, and Ms. York posted a notice to that effect. Mr. Louis was accustomed to walking through the electric door and thinks he is entitled to do so because he doesn’t drive a vehicle in and out. • A fire inspector advised that ceiling fans should be left running in the amenities/recreation room at all times. Ms. York posted signs to this effect. Mr.

Louis found the fans disturbing when he used the room to read or study, or occasionally to play pool, and he did not have a key to the utilities room where the fan controls were located, so he defaced the signs and repeatedly removed the face plates from the ceiling fans and turned them off. • A decision to close the amenities room and sell its furnishings. The decision was later reversed. • A decision to spend money on roof repairs. • His belief that Council should make enquiries to ascertain whether the building’s elevator was a type that was subject to a B.C.

Safety Authority Safety Order. • Payment of dues: at one point there was a dispute about whether council should accept cheques from Mr. Louis, and there has been a second dispute about whether he paid monthly dues twice when there was a change in management companies. • The legality of an age restriction by-law that prevented Mr. Louis from residing in the building. [ 9 ] Mr.

Louis’ efforts to achieve his goals have included pushing long letters complaining about Council matters under the doors of condo residents, particularly Council members, even when told to communicate with the property management company rather than with individual Council members, and repeatedly haranguing Council members and videotaping conversations with them in order to create evidence for potential lawsuits, as well as other efforts described below.

Some issues have led to litigation in the Supreme Court. [ 10 ] As I indicated throughout the hearing, decisions on the rights and privileges of an “unregistered owner” or any of the other issues between Mr. Louis and Council are beyond the scope of this hearing. Assessment of Evidence [ 11 ] I accept Ms. York’s testimony about Mr. Louis’ behaviour because she was forthright and responded clearly to questions in cross-examination, and because her testimony was consistent and supported by other evidence.

Moreover, when testifying she displayed emotion that was consistent with the emotional impact of the events she described. Mr. Louis admitted some of the conduct Ms. York and other witnesses complained of, including the incident on October 8, 2011. Moreover, the facts of that incident are clear because Mr. Louis presented a videotape that he had made of it. [ 12 ] Other Crown witnesses described behaviour similar to that recounted by Ms. York, establishing that Mr. Louis has a propensity to invade other residents’ privacy, lie in wait for them, follow them, and badger them with talk about Council issues.

However, where a Crown witness’ perception was unproven or not reasonable when considered objectively, I did not accept their evidence. For example, Ms. Metcalfe assumed Mr. Louis had followed her when she saw him near the White Rock beach, but conceded that could have been a coincidence, even though she felt he stared at her from across the road. Ms. Clarke didn’t like Mr. Louis addressing her as “Dear Karen” at the beginning of an unwanted letter, although that is a customary salutation in a letter.

I have not relied on this or similar evidence. [ 13 ] Where witnesses had a detailed recollection of a specific incident and Mr. Louis did not recall it or could only say he did not think he would have behaved in such a fashion, I accepted the detailed, coherent recollections rather than Mr. Louis’ vague denials. The incidents described by the witnesses had an impact on them, giving them reason to remember the details, and some of the details they provided were unlikely to have been fabricated. For example, Ms. York’s description of the lifestyle changes she has made as a result of Mr.

Louis’ behaviour, including putting a towel under her door to avoid “driving (herself) crazy watching for his feet,” would be an unusual detail to have fabricated. [ 14 ] On the other hand, Mr. Louis’ testimony was often vague and he was disingenuous, evasive and argumentative under cross- examination. For example, when he eavesdropped on Ms.

Metcalfe and another resident on September 23, 2012, he said that he saw them as he was leaving, returned to the building to retrieve something and put it away, and then changed his plans and decided to conduct his daily inspection of the building rather than continue the shopping trip he had begun. He said he went to the third floor just to walk through the building and just happened to encounter them and eavesdrop. However, I have no doubt at all that Mr. Louis went to the third floor in the hope of eavesdropping on the women’s private conversation. [ 15 ] Mr.

Louis also avoided answering questions about his intentions and conduct during the October 8, 2011 incident, saying he was not sure about details even though he had videotaped the incident and introduced the videotape as evidence. When asked if his

conduct that day amounted to badgering Ms. York, he replied that he had been badgered with threats of fines for several months and his conduct was less than hers. Mr. Louis was also evasive when asked how he knew when Ms. York would leave her suite on October 8 th although he admitted that he knew what time she left for work, both in 2011 and currently, and he knew what she did on the weekend. [ 16 ] For these reasons and others mentioned below I accept Ms. York’s evidence, and where it conflicts with hers, reject Mr. Louis’ evidence. Facts [ 17 ] The testimony of Ms.

York, amplified by that of other Crown witnesses, Mr. Louis, and the videotape, establishes the following relevant facts. [ 18 ] Ms. York, age 58, bought unit 204 in April 2010 and has lived in it since then. On moving in she attempted to make friends with Mr. Louis but when she joined Council about six months later and became President his behaviour towards her changed.

He became very agitated and angry about Council issues, lay in wait for her and “verbally attacked” her when she left her unit, raising his voice, following her closely, displaying anger, and “getting in her face.” He videotaped her without consent; and has been excluded from strata meetings because of disruptive behaviour including behaving in an agitated manner and rocking back and forth while standing during the meeting. After being expelled from one strata meeting he threatened to sue her and clean out her bank account, taking all her money. He pushed long letters under her door after being told not to do so.

Mr. Louis’ disturbing behaviour continued after she left Council. [ 19 ] On October 8, 2011, Mr. Louis waited in the hall with a video camera and began recording when Ms. York left her suite, before she came into view. He followed her very closely down the stairs leading to the garage in a narrow stairwell, talking all the time and asking questions about the fans in the amenities room although she didn’t reply and it was obvious she didn’t wish to speak to him. He followed her to her car, still video recording her and now speaking in a raised voice, and stood close to the driver’s door as she closed it.

He then video recorded her as she drove out, running or walking very quickly to follow her car outside the garage. He continued to video until the car stopped. Ms. York’s foot on the brake was shaking so much from fear that she felt unable to drive and called police. She felt very intimidated by Mr. Louis’ actions, was afraid he would hit her, and is afraid he’ll get so mad he’ll corner her and injure her. [ 20 ] In June 2013, while bound by a bail order prohibiting contact with Ms. York, Mr. Louis appeared suddenly from behind a corner and yelled “Boo” when she entered the amenities room.

She was frightened and ran to her unit shaking. This was the second time he has done this to her. He has also given her a nasty look and stared at her while bound by this bail order. [ 21 ] Ms. York testified that she doesn’t know what Mr. Louis is capable of; she believes he’s very strong, and he told her he spent time at Riverview and receives a disability pension. She has changed her lifestyle because of her fear of him.

She walks visitors out for their protection; she doesn’t have personal conversations on her cell phone in rooms where he could eavesdrop; she secures her door so she can tell if someone has entered her unit, double locks her doors and looks around to see if Mr. Louis is hiding when she goes out. She even puts a towel along the bottom of her front door when she is at home to prevent herself from checking compulsively through the gap beneath her door to see whether he’s standing outside it. [ 22 ] Ms. York’s testimony about Mr.

Louis’ behaviour was supported by the testimony of other condo owners who described the following unpredictable and disturbing behaviour: eavesdropping; waiting in the garage to accost and harangue people; appearing suddenly into their line of vision from behind a pillar, at their car, and in locations throughout the building; defacing notices posted by Council members; removing strata property, and rearranging furniture in rooms prepared for meetings. [ 23 ] In addition to describing some of the behaviour just mentioned, Ms. Metcalfe, age 74, testified that Mr.

Louis’ previously friendly behaviour with her changed when she joined Council. She has received more than 50 long letters from Mr. Louis, and was frightened when he hid, squatting in front of her car in the garage and popped out, talking. On that occasion she ran away because she was afraid he would injure her. He also appeared suddenly when she and her 11 year old granddaughter entered the amenities room, and said “Friend or foe,” frightening them. She believes there has been a progression and change in his behaviour patterns over the twelve years she has lived in the building.

In the last several months when she hasn’t responded to Mr. Louis, he has kept talking to her even after she has passed, and she feels afraid when her back is turned to him. As a result of Mr. Louis’ unpredictable behaviour she feels threatened and fearful, and is always on guard. Her confrontations with Mr. Louis continued when she was off the Council for two years. She is again on Council and fears what he will do in retaliation for changes made by the new Council. [ 24 ] Karen Clarke, age 70, testified that she tried repeatedly to have a cordial relationship with Mr.

Louis but what started out as friendship became stalking. Five years ago she left the Council after five months because Mr. Louis followed and badgered her. She put a board on the bottom of her door to prevent Mr. Louis from pushing papers under it. He always seemed to be in the basement when she went there, to come running from the door, sometimes in his stocking feet. He left phone messages and telephoned from a store and a pay phone so his number didn’t appear on her call display. Her requests that he not call her had no effect, so to avoid receiving calls from him she changed her telephone number.

She left Council at the suggestion of the RCMP but Mr. Louis’ behaviour and efforts to discuss Council matters with her continued after she took that step. When she tried to sell her unit he came to the open house, went into her bedroom and looked in her refrigerator. As a result of Mr. Louis’ behaviour with prospective buyers and her realtor she closed the open house early. [ 25 ] Ms. Clarke is a registered nurse. When she worked evenings she was afraid to park in the basement garage because Mr. Louis always seemed to be there. For a while, another resident would wait up for her to meet her in the garage. Ms.

Clarke then began to park in front of the building on the street to avoid Mr. Louis and he was angry and accused her of parking in front of “his house.” Once when she did park in the garage, Mr. Louis followed her into the elevator, pushing open the door that had begun to close, and stopped the elevator, wanting to talk. She was very frightened but he released the “lock” when told to. After she decided to use the stairs she encountered Mr. Louis in the stairwell and was afraid to be alone with him in that confined space. As a result she stopped going to the basement. Mr.

Louis would also pass her windows 6 or 7 times a day, putting things in the garbage. She closed her blinds but it seemed whenever she opened them he would be there. On one occasion he said to her “If you don’t look at me you’d better watch out.” A few weeks ago Mr. Louis told Ms. Clarke he was going to call her employer and tell them she was mean to her patients.

[26] Recently, Mr. Louis replaced some cement planters at the front of the building with orange plastic ones, dumping the cementplanters down the lane. Although Mr. Louis testified that he did it in an effort to beautify the building, when Ms. Clarke asked him whyhe took the planter, he replied that the Council never gave him minutes. This appears to be an example of Mr. Louis “taking anotherroute” by using nuisance behaviour to achieve his goals. [27] Randall Theberge described being bothered and disturbed by interaction between Mr. Louis and Ms. York in the fall of 2011.He recounted an incident in which Mr.

Louis was agitated and suggested Mr. Theberge and Ms. York had been talking about himalthough this was not true. He thought Mr. Louis appeared to be trying to goad Ms. York. On another occasion when Mr. Louis wasupset about Ms. Clark parking on the street in front of the building in a space in front of his unit, Mr. Louis told Mr. Theberge that KarenClark had better watch out or she would “get it.” From the look in his eye and his firm tone of voice, Mr. Theberge was afraid Mr. Louiswould kill her. He has observed Mr. Louis to be particularly agitated with Karen York and Karen Clark, but when Mr.

Theberge walkedinto the amenities room late one night, Mr. Louis frightened him by appearing suddenly and making a roaring sound, “Rarrrrr.” Mr.Theberge watches to make sure Mr. Louis is not in the garage when he takes out the recycling. [28] Cst. Bickell, an RCMP officer with four years’ experience, has attended the building more than sixteen times since October2011, in connection with four investigations concerning Mr. Louis. As a result of what he’s been told and his observations of Mr.

Louis,he approaches the building with heightened awareness, locating his pistol and pepper spray, and often undoing one of the snaps on theholsters containing them. He has concerns about Mr. Louis escalating things to the point where he could become violent. Does Ms. York Fear that Mr. Louis will Cause Her Personal Injury? [29] I accept the reasoning in Haydock v. Baker, 2001 YKTC 502 (followed in R. v. P.A.O. 2002 BCPC 560 and R. v. D.C.H. 2011BCPC 443) that “personal injury” in s. 810 includes both physical and psychological injury: 18 … Does personal injury include physical and psychological injury?

S. 810 speaks of personal injury, not physical harm. Althoughoften not as apparent, psychological harm can be as devastating as any physical injury. For the following reasons the protective reach of apeace bond encompasses psychological injuries:

a) The dictionary definition of injury is not restricted to physical injury. "Injury" means: "Wrongful action or treatment, violation or infringement of another's rights, suffering or mischief wilfully or unjustly inflicted... Alsoa wrongful act, a wrong inflicted or suffered

(2) Intentionally hurtful or offensive speech or words: insult, calumny or taunt, anaffront" (Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1973) at 1075). The primary and secondary

definitions of injury encompass both physical and psychological injuries. The wrongful act can be by actionsor words. The suffering caused by a wrongful act can be physical, mental or emotional.

b) The Criminal Code, in defining "bodily harm," includes "any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of theperson and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature" (Section 2, Criminal Code). Psychological damage can be the principalnon-transient injury of a physical or sexual assault (R. v. McCraw (1991), (SCC), 7 C.R. (4th) 314 (S.C.C.).).

c) In defining the scope of a peace bond, the Legislature chose quite different terminology than in defining the scope of assaults. The useor threat of physical force is necessary to constitute an assault under the Criminal Code, but the use of physical force is not necessary tocause psychological injury. Nothing in s. 810 restricts the protective reach of a peace bond to matters that constitute an assault or a crime.The basis of an information for a peace bond need not allege a crime - only reasonable fear of personal injury.

To read any less into thescope of a peace bond would ignore the plain language of the provision and ignore the significant practical protection a peace bondprovides in circumstances that do not involve the fear of physical harm. 19 If psychological harm were excluded from the reach of a statutory peace bond, a very savvy respondent could wage a campaign ofvengeful, injurious acts causing significant psychological injury without stepping over the legal line that brings their actions within theprotective reach of a peace bond. A psychological injury can be as serious a personal injury as most physical injuries.

Peace bonds protectagainst both kinds of personal injuries (R. v. Hujdic, [1997] S.J. No. 779 (Prov. Ct.) at para. 15.). [30] Mr. Louis believes there has been a consistent pattern of antagonism and harassment directed against him by the Strata Councilsince 2006, before Ms. York moved in, when he helped organize residents in an initiative to make Council more transparent and open.He believes Ms. York likely felt pressure to go along with the “negative inertia” of some Council members who want him to move out.As examples of Council members’ animosity towards him, Mr.

Louis cited a former Council member who insisted on smoking cigars onthe building’s front verandah below his window until Mr. Louis involved the city bylaw enforcement officer, and the fact that during thepresidency of Ms. Metcalfe, Council began to refuse him minutes and financial statements. Mr. Louis felt Ms. Metcalfe was often veryhostile when he spoke to her about it. [31] Mr. Louis agreed with Karen York that their relationship was friendly at first but changed when she joined Council.

However,he said that she provoked him with arbitrary rules, and he perceived her as imposing metaphorical “trip wires” as a means of cultivatingconflict with him. He blames Ms. York for the measures taken to restrict use of the garage door and keep fans on; sees them as efforts byher to engineer conflict; and says she responded to his polite requests with “anger and venom” by sending letters threatening him withfines. However, under cross-examination he admitted that he only assumed that notices from “Council” were sent by Ms.

York and thatthey merely stated he would be fined if he persisted in unplugging the fan and walking out the garage door. [32] Mr. Louis said that he eavesdropped on Ms. Metcalfe on September 23, 2012 and heard her encouraging another woman towrite negative things about him and give it to the RCMP. He said she also said that might finally get him out of the building without

costing them a cent. Ms. Metcalfe testified that the RCMP asked her to let anyone who wished to make a statement know they could do so, and she encouraged the other woman to do that after the woman approached her. Mr. Louis did not ask Ms. Metcalfe if she had made the second statement he alleged so my ability to assess that evidence is limited. Given the possibility for error arising from the fact that it was overheard in a hallway when Mr. Louis was hiding out of sight of the speakers, I give it no weight. [ 33 ] I have considered Mr. Louis’ theory and concluded that the evidence does not support it.

I am sure there are residents of the building who would like him to move out but the most likely causes are his invasion of other residents’ privacy, lack of consideration, nuisance activities, intrusive harassing behaviour, and the legal fees spent on disputes with him. [ 34 ] His customs of spending time in the garage with no apparent purpose, walking around residential floors other than his own, and eavesdropping would reasonably cause other residents to believe he is spying on them.

Using the amenities/recreation room as an extension of his unit shows lack of consideration for others who might want to use the room. Interfering with an open house, defacing signs, and removing things belonging to others from common property can be characterized as nuisance behaviour. However, the evidence shows that it is Mr. Louis’ intrusive, unpredictable, badgering behaviour that has generated fear in the witnesses he has targeted, including Ms. York. All three women who testified tried to be friendly with Mr.

Louis at first, but his conduct towards them became intolerable after they joined Council. [ 35 ] I accept Ms. York’s testimony that she does fear personal injury from Mr. Louis. She displayed emotion consistent with fear while testifying about Mr. Louis’ behaviour towards her. She also displayed emotion consistent with fear during her cross-examination after learning that he had videotaped her when she was not aware of it. Ms. York described precautions she takes as a result of her fear: double locking doors, not talking on the telephone in rooms where Mr.

Louis might be able to eavesdrop, looking to see whether he’s hiding when she enters hallways and common areas, putting a towel along the bottom of her door so she won’t continually watch for his feet at her door, and considering moving. This testimony was credible and was not challenged or contradicted. [ 36 ] Mr. Louis acknowledged that his relationship with Ms. York was friendly at first. She testified that it was Mr.

Louis who changed his behaviour towards her when she joined the strata council, and it was his intolerable behaviour that changed her attitude, not things said to her by RCMP officers or other strata council members. I accept that testimony because it is supported by the evidence of other strata residents about Mr. Louis’ behaviour towards Council members. [ 37 ] Mr. Louis argued that Ms. York’s actions in posting notices about the garage door and fans and yelling at him to let window cleaners clean the outside of his windows were inconsistent with real fear. However, fear can co-exist with other emotions.

People who are afraid may nevertheless attempt to control behaviour they find objectionable. People who are afraid may nevertheless stand up to bullying behaviour. Mr. Louis saw Ms. York’s actions as arbitrary decisions made by her with the intent of provoking him to conflict. However, I accept Ms. York’s testimony that she was carrying out decisions made by Council members or acting on the instructions of a fire inspector when she posted notices. [ 38 ] The evidence establishes that as a result of Mr. Louis’ unpredictability and his intrusive, badgering conduct on October 8, 2011, Ms.

York fears that he may use physical force against her, even though he has not done so in the past. Moreover, she has already suffered psychological harm as a result of his actions and clearly fears its continuance. She has changed her lifestyle because of his conduct, taking measures to protect herself and her visitors, her private phone calls, and her ability to feel safe in her own home.

The fact that she puts a towel along the bottom of her door to avoid “driving herself crazy watching for his feet” indicates the extent to which she has already suffered emotional harm and fears the impact on her of further contact with Mr. Louis. Are Ms. York’s Fears Reasonable? [ 39 ] If, as Ms. York understood him to have said, Mr. Louis spent time in Riverview, a psychiatric hospital, and receives a disability pension, that would not be a reasonable ground to fear he would cause personal injury. There is no evidence of a diagnosis that he suffers from any condition that would make him a danger to others.

It is Mr. Louis’ behaviour I must assess to determine whether Ms. York’s fear is reasonable. [ 40 ] Mr. Louis said he did not intend to harass or intimidate Ms. York on October 8, 2011. He explained his behaviour that day as follows. He was alarmed by letters saying he would be fined if he persisted in unplugging the fans and walking through the electric garage door. If he were fined and did not pay it would lead to civil litigation.

He decided to record evidence to protect himself in case of litigation about unpaid fines. [ 41 ] He also said that he does not intend to scare people when he says “Who goes there, friend or foe?” While it is possible that Mr. Louis is not aware of the impact of some of his idiosyncratic behaviour on others, the evidence satisfies me that at times he certainly intends his actions to annoy, disrupt, and disturb the people he is targeting in his efforts to achieve his goals. He may even be the type of “very savvy respondent” referred to in Haydock v.

Baker who is capable of waging a campaign of injurious acts causing psychological injury without threatening physical harm. Moreover, he is often reckless about the impact of his actions on others, not caring about the effect on others because he is focused on his own agenda to the exclusion of everything else. [ 42 ] I find that if he did not intend to harass and intimidate Ms. York on October 8, 2011, he was at the very least reckless about the impact of his actions on her.

The video shows that he persisted in following her closely through a narrow stairwell and underground parking garage, asking questions and videotaping her, although she did not reply and attempted to ignore him. [ 43 ] Mr. Louis said he will have no need to have conflict with Ms. York if she does not return to Council; however, her evidence and that of Ms. Metcalfe and Ms. Clarke establishes that his unpredictable harassing behaviour has continued whether or not they were on Council. Moreover, Ms.

York has the right to sit on Council if she is elected. [ 44 ] He also points to the fact that he did no further video recording between October 8, 2011 and his arrest in April 2012. However, videoing Ms. York is just one aspect of his behaviour on October 8 th . Other threatening aspects of his conduct were ascertaining when Ms. York would leave home, lying in wait for her at that time, following her closely in confined spaces, talking continuously when it was

obvious she didn’t want his company, following her to the door of her car and continuing while she got in and closed the door, and following the car as it left the garage. The evidence establishes that he has a propensity for this type of behaviour. [ 45 ] Mr. Louis also said that his personality type is not to force himself on Council members but he has done so repeatedly. In fact, forcing Council members to comply with his requests appears to be a very high priority for Mr. Louis. [ 46 ] Regarding the facts objectively, I consider there to be a high likelihood that Mr.

Louis will cause significant psychological harm to Ms. York, and a possibility that he could cause physical harm to her. The extent to which Ms. York has already changed her lifestyle to protect herself from Mr. Louis indicates the high level of anxiety she feels about contact with him. [ 47 ] The three women who testified are all independent, capable women with experience managing people. They did not appear to be easily frightened. Yet all the witnesses have been frightened by Mr. Louis or concerned by his behaviour and have taken steps to avoid him or protect themselves from him. I am satisfied that Mr.

Louis’ unpredictable, intrusive and hectoring behaviour would cause a reasonable person in Ms. York’s circumstances to fear he will cause personal injury to her. [ 48 ] I therefore conclude that the grounds to place Mr. Louis on a recognizance have been established. The Crown has proven that Karen York has reasonable ground to fear and does fear that Mr. Louis will cause personal injury to her by virtue of the incident that occurred on October 8, 2011. _________________________________________ The Honourable A.E. Rounthwaite Provincial Court Judge