R v Laird, 2023 ABCJ 251

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Laird, 2023 ABCJ 251 Date: 20231130 Docket: 200767846P1 Registry: Edmonton Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Donald Alexander Laird Accused Decision of the Honourable Justice F.E. LeReverend [ 1 ] Mr. Laird is charged that on the 9 July, 2020, he did send an email communication to the office of Marlin Schmidt, contrary to s 372(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada . That

section provides [ 2 ] Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to annoy or alarm a person makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by means of telecommunication. [ 3 ] The trial commenced on 26 September 2023. Mr. Laird did not have a lawyer. He did not call any evidence. [ 4 ] Crown called six witnesses. Evidence not in Dispute [ 5 ] The following evidence was not disputed. [ 6 ] Mr. Schmidt is the MLA for Edmonton Gold Bar constituency. The office is located at 8925-82 Avenue in Edmonton. The email address for the office is EdmontonGoldbar@assembly.ab.com .

The email address is public information. It is published in the government directory, on newsletters sent from the Edmonton-Gold Bar office and on Mr. Schmidt’s business cards. [ 7 ] Katy Campbell is the constituency assistant to Mr. Schmidt and the only full-time employee.

[ 8 ] There is a part time employee. [ 9 ] Ms. Scott was employed as the constituency assistant to MLA Janis Irwin of the Edmonton-Highlands Norwood constituency. [ 10 ] One of the duties of Ms. Campbell is to view the emails sent to the email address and take appropriate action which could involve showing a particular email to Mr. Schmidt. [ 11 ] March 2020 was the beginning of covid isolation. By July 2020, Ms. Campbell, on occasion, worked at the office and on other occasions worked from her home. [ 12 ] On 9 July 2020 she was at the office.

An email sent to the office email address was brought to her attention. [ 13 ] The email was sent on 9 July at 2:03 am to Michelle Rempel and copied to M.

Schmidt’s published email address and approximately 20 others including other constituencies and media. [ 14 ] At 12:24 pm on 9 July the same communication was sent to another group of recipients including Edmonton-Highlands Norwood and the email addresses of mayors in Alberta. [ 15 ] The subject of the email was “Alberta Funnyman Marlin Schmidt, and his wife were assassinated while shopping, absolutely funny (w/mildly graphic photo)”. (Exhibit 4). [ 16 ] The email refers to two Twitter links which the sender wrote “links NDP MLA Marlin Schmidt standing in the Alberta Provincial Legislature and getting a good laugh out of the death of former conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wishing that Prime Minister Thatcher had died 30 years ago”. [ 17 ] In bold capital letters it said “An open letter to MP Michelle Rempel (post forward and quote as far and wide as possible.)” [ 18 ] The email purported to be sent from the email name of D L Alberta with the email address of dlalberta@protonmail.com . [ 19 ] The email was “signed” by Don Laird, Alberta, Canada. [ 20 ] Upon reading the email, Ms.

Campbell sent a copy to the Sergeant-at-Arms at the Legislature. The Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for the safety of members of the Legislature and their staff. [ 21 ] The Sergeant-at-Arms gave Ms. Campbell certain advice and as a result of that advice, she notified the police in Edmonton. The email was brought to the attention of Mr. Schmidt. I will hereafter refer to this email as the Schmidt email. Evidence in Dispute [ 22 ] What is in dispute is the intention of the sender of the communication. Crown must prove that the sender sent the communication with intent to alarm or annoy.

Crown must prove that the communication was indecent. Crown must prove that Mr. Laird sent the Schmidt email. [ 23 ] While it is not necessary to prove actual alarm, three witnesses testified that they found the contents of the Schmidt email alarming and they understood it to be a threat on the life of Mr. Schmidt. [ 24 ] Ms. Campbell testified that upon reading the email she was upset, disturbed, and alarmed. She described it as the most disturbing email she had read in her 8 years as Mr. Schmidt’s assistant. [ 25 ] She understood the email to be a threat of violence against Mr. Schmidt and his wife.

After speaking to the Sergeant-of-Arms she went home and remained there for several days as she was concerned for her safety. [ 26 ] She sent the email to the Sergeant-of-Arms as protocol required her to send to that office, any communication that she found to be threatening in nature. [ 27 ] Mr. Schmidt testified.

He was working at the Alberta Legislature on 9 July 2020. [ 28 ] When he reviewed the email, he testified that he understood the email to mean that “someone should shoot me down in a public place”. [ 29 ] He testified that after reading the attachment to the email he understood that the sender thought it would be funny if he were shot. [ 30 ] When he looked at the photos in the attachment he didn’t know if the sender had already killed people he knew.

He was terrified that his wife, who was pregnant at the time, would be shot as the sender described her shooting and added “a 3-for-2 shooting”. [ 31 ] He testified that the email portrayed a level of cruelty he had rarely experienced. It was the most graphic and terrifying communication he had ever received. [ 32 ] He was very concerned as the sender asked that the email be posted as far and wide as possible. [ 33 ] He was terrified. He attended upon a therapist.

[ 34 ] He didn’t return to his office for several days and when he did return, he and his staff kept the doors locked. [ 35 ] Ms. Scott testified that when she read the email, she didn’t even open the attachment. The email referred to corpses and she wasn’t comfortable looking further. [ 36 ] She understood the email to promote violence against Mr. Schmidt and she was very concerned for his safety. [ 37 ] After reading the email she immediately sent a copy to the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms. [ 38 ] Mr. Laird cross-examined the witnesses on their testimony. [ 39 ] He played the twitter video of Mr.

Schmidt in the Legislature to Ms. Campbell and suggested that Mr. Schmidt had committed such a horrendous act that she couldn’t possibly be upset about the contents of the Schmidt email. [ 40 ] At page 53, lines 21 – 30: THE ACCUSED: What I -- what I’m concerned with, Your Honour, and -- and this enlarges on this, and -- and the point that I’m trying to make is that Ms.

Campbell claims to be very upset and disturbed by the content of an email that is largely an attack on her boss’ character, no direct threat to his physical safety, and yet she’s employed by a man who displays most reprehensible forms of behaviour, incident after incident after incident, and what this does is speaks to Ms.

Campbell’s hypocrisy and manipulation of an email, blowing it out of proportion, when she’s standing in the shadow of a man who gloats over the death of political opponents and who ignores, as a matter of record, who ignores the most outrageous behaviour of his political colleagues and fails to defend his own constituents. So you’re offended by a little email, but you ignore a threat -- [ 41 ] Mr. Laird cross-examined Mr. Schmidt and suggested not only that Mr.

Schmidt was overly sensitive about the contents, but that he had the criminal charges laid as it was cheaper for him to exact retribution for the email then suing in civil court for defamation. [ 42 ] At page 75, lines 29 – 37 he states: Q When I look at the -- when we watch the video, the statements that you have made regarding being extremely terrified, extremely graphic, callous and cruel, appear to be overstatement, an exaggeration, self-serving overstatement and exaggeration, bordering on -- although your demeanour here today is not hysterical, but bordering on hysteria.

When you compare your description of your reaction to your performance in the legislature, smacks of hypocrisy and service to self and exaggeration, you’ve gloated over the death of a political opponent, you get an email that mocks you, refers to faggotry and cowardness, and you talk about being extremely disturbed and callous and cruel.

What, if nothing else, is your performance in the Legislature compared to that? [ 43 ] At page 104, lines 21 to page 105, line 14 Q THE ACCUSED: You have an email here, sir, that carries very unflattering -- and this goes to motivation, you have an email here -- and -- and acting as a witness, you have a -- an email here which attacks your credibility, which attacks your character, which attacks your reputation.

It was sent to a large -- or allegedly sent to a large number of people who some of which may have found it funny in light of the statements, sort of a quid pro quo in light of the statements that you made in the Legislature, and then made you the subject of further mockery. When you attack character and credibility, when you attack reputation, the loss of reputation and the loss of custom associated with an attack on a man’s character or conduct is solely governed in this country by the laws of defamation, so here’s my question.

Rather than commencing a civil action against me, filing and serving your statement of claim and commencing an action in defamation, which comes out of your pocket, it is better to engage in exaggeration and hysterics and overstatement and weaponize the criminal justice system and the Edmonton Police Service and set into motion a criminal procedure to attack, at no expense to you, one of your critics and that really, sir, is your true motivation here, is to weaponize and send a message by weaponizing the criminal justice system for something that was just an attack on your character and credibility; correct, Mr.

Schmidt? MS. O’CONNOR: So I think the question is, is did you -- did your office go to the police as a payback to Mr. Laird for your remarks in the house? A Thank you for that clarification. Q THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Ms. O’Connor. A My staff and I interpreted this as a death threat and we took the appropriate steps to deal with death threats when we receive them in the office. That means reporting them to the Sergeant of Arms, following his advice on reporting it to the Edmonton Police Service, and once it’s reported to the Edmonton Police Service it’s taken entirely out of my hands.

Their decision to investigate it was purely their own. The Crown prosecutors decision to prosecute this was purely their own. I’m only here as a witness testifying to the fact that I found that this email was a direct threat on my life and telling everybody in this court today what we did once we received it. [ 44 ] When he cross-examined Ms. Scott, he attempted to get her to admit she did not find the email alarming; rather, thought it was a sarcastic slur on Mr. Schmidt’s character. She categorically denied it; and stated it was a threat on the life of Mr. Schmidt and his wife. Did Mr.

Laird send the Schmidt email? [ 45 ] Crown proceeded by way of a voir dire to prove the identity of the sender of the email. [ 46 ] Three witnesses were called in the voir dire . [ 47 ] Their evidence, while not admitted by Mr. Schmidt, is not disputed in any relevant matter.

[ 48 ] On 22 May 2019 the accused was operating his vehicle in Camrose, Alberta when he was stopped by Camrose police officer Sangster and given a ticket for failing to wear a seat belt. Cst. Sangster obtained Mr. Laird’s driver’s license and vehicle registration. He completed the ticket using that information. He identified Mr. Laird using that information. [ 49 ] The ticket, certificate of Mr. Laird’s driver’s license and vehicle registration were entered into evidence. [ 50 ] They give Mr.

Laird’s address as PO Box 6563, Edson Alberta, the ticket number and description of the vehicle he was driving. [ 51 ] Forty minutes after receiving the ticket Mr. Laird attended at the Camrose police station and requested of Cst. Cossette that certain documents be preserved. Mr. Laird was the only person in the room while Cst. Cossette dealt with him. He identified himself as the owner of the ticket. [ 52 ] Cst. Cossette advised Mr. Laird that he should make his request to Deputy Chief Foreman and gave him the Officer’s email address. In addition, he gave Mr. Laird his business card which contained Cst.

Cossette’s email address. [ 53 ] Approximately 2 1/2 hours after the attendance, Cst. Cossette received a copy of an email sent by Mr. Laird to Deputy Chief Foreman at the given email address and copied his email. [ 54 ] Several emails were sent by Mr. Laird. They were copied by Mr. Laird to Cst. Cossette. They were responded to by Deputy Chief Foreman, and it is obvious from the responses received that Mr. Laird received the emails sent by the Deputy Chief. [ 55 ] The emails were sent by email from the name of D L Alberta and the email address given was dlalberta@protonmail.com .

The emails were “signed” by Don Laird, Alberta, Canada. [ 56 ] Mr. Laird sent a letter to the Deputy Chief. It was sent from PO Box 6563; Edson Alberta It was Re Issuance of the ticket and FOIP request. It references the office attendance, the ticket number, the previous emails, and attached emails sent and received. [ 57 ] In the letter which he signed “Don Laird” he asked the Deputy Chief to respond to the email address of dlalberta@protonmail.com. The letter was the last communication and was sent on 29 May 2019. [ 58 ] In cross-examination, Mr.

Laird asked if the computers were properly working, or if they could have been phished or hacked but Deputy Chief Foreman stated they were working properly with no suggestion of any problems. [ 59 ] Mr. Laird did not present any evidence on the voir dire . [ 60 ] In argument on the admission of the voir dire evidence into the trial proper, Mr. Laird argued that it was not relevant to the issue before the court.

Namely, it only showed that in May 2019 he used the email address of dlalberta@protonmail.com . [ 61 ] He argued that the emails did not contain the header, which he said is information contained in each email and discloses, amongst other information, the internet provider and computer from which the email was sent. None of the witnesses knew to what he was referring.

No evidence was entered as to the contents of headers. [ 62 ] He argued that there was no evidence the computers were fully functional or that phishing or hacking was involved. [ 63 ] He argued the emails were not authenticated. [ 64 ] I was satisfied Mr. Laird was the person to whom the ticket was given, was the person who attended upon Cst. Cossette, was the person who sent and received emails, and was the person who sent the FOIP request. [ 65 ] I was satisfied the computers were working properly and hadn’t been hacked or phished. [ 66 ] The evidence unequivocally connects Mr.

Laird as the author of certain emails and recipient of the others. The evidence unequivocally connects Mr. Laird to the user name, address and gives his signature. [ 67 ] I allowed the evidence to form part of the trial proper and advised that the weight to be attached to his use of the address, and email name in May 2019 was something to be argued at the conclusion of the Crown’s case. [ 68 ] Upon the voir dire evidence forming part of the trial proper, Crown closed its case. Mr. Laird did not call any evidence. The Law [ 69 ] Section 372(2) is a hybrid offence.

Crown proceeded summarily. [ 70 ] The maximum penalty is a fine of $5000 or 2 years less a day in prison. [ 71 ] The offence requires that the Crown prove: 1. An indecent communication by telecommunication was sent to a person. 2. The communication was sent with intent to alarm or annoy. 3. Mr. Laird was the sender of the communication.

1. AN INDECENT COMMUNICATION BY TELECOMMUNICATION WAS SENT TO A PERSON [ 72 ] McLachlin J in R v Labaye , 2005 SCC 80 at para 62 wrote the test to determine whether a communication or conduct is indecent. 62 Indecent criminal conduct will be established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the following two requirements: 1. That, by its nature , the conduct at issue causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society in a way that undermines or threatens to undermine a value reflected in and thus formally endorsed through the Constitution or similar fundamental laws by, for example: (

a) confronting members of the public with conduct that significantly interferes with their autonomy and liberty; or (

b) predisposing others to anti-social behaviour; or (

c) physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct, and 2. That the harm or risk of harm is of a degree that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society. As the above makes clear, the categories of harm capable of satisfying the first branch of the inquiry are not closed, nor is any one of the listed categories in itself an integral part of the definition of harm.

For example, predisposition to anti-social behaviour, while central to this Court’s analysis in Butler , is but one illustration of the type of harm that undermines or threatens to undermine one of society’s formally recognized values. [ 73 ] Where there is no actual harm McLachlin J said at para 70 the risk of harm must be a substantial risk. [ 74 ] I am satisfied that the email and attachment posed a significant risk of harm to Mr. Schmidt, his staff and wife and meets the definition of indecent.

i) The subject line of the email “Alberta NDP funnyman Marlin Schmidt and his wife assassinated while shopping, absolutely hilarious (w/mildly graphic photo)”; ii) The statement at pg. 2 of the email “Perhaps you and your colleagues could remind funnyman Marlin Schmidt that finding hilarity in the deaths of one’s political opponents is a two-way street”; iii) The graphic photo implying in text below the image that the murdered persons depicted were “NDP MLA Marlin Schmidt and his wife”; iv) The entirety of the text below the image – specifically 1) identifying the persons depicted in the image as “Marlin Schmidt and his wife; and 2) the words, “it was hilarious as the gunman put a few bullets into each of them, including a couple of well placed head shots”;

v) The request that recipients post forward and quote as far and wide as possible”; and vi) The text suggesting “the really hilarious part of this little bit of target practice is that funnyman Marlin Schmidt’s wife was pregnant at the time. So really it was a 3-for-2 special !!!!” [ 75 ] It is clear from the reactions of Ms. Scott and Ms. Campbell that they were sufficiently alarmed for the safety of Mr. Schmidt, that they immediately sent the communication to the Sergeant-of -Arms and Ms. Campbell reported the communication to the Edmonton police. [ 76 ] Ms.

Campbell was sufficiently concerned for her safety that she worked from home. When she and Mr. Schmidt returned to the office, they kept the doors locked to the public. [ 77 ] Ms. Scott refused to open the attachment after reading the description of the images in the email. [ 78 ] There is no evidence to suggest, as argued by Mr.

Laird, that the email was a satirically mocking email which fell well within the law as feedback for an incident that took place in the Legislature. [ 79 ] While the accused attempted to show that the witnesses could not have been truthful when they described their reactions to the subject email, I am satisfied the witnesses were being truthful. Their testimony was not shaken during cross-examination and their reaction is consistent with a normal person’s reaction. [ 80 ] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.

Laird sent the Schmidt email and that the email was indecent as it significantly interfered with the autonomy and liberty of Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Campbell, encouraged recipients to behave in an anti-

social manner, and caused psychological harm to Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Campbell. The risk of harm is of such degree that it isincompatible with the proper functioning of society. 2.

INTENT TO ALARM OR ANNOY [81] In R v Okrane, 2004 SKPC 153 Judge Lavoie considered the word alarm and adopted the Concise Oxford Dictionarydefinition which provides. “frighten, anticipation of danger, uneasiness, arose to sense of danger, disturb, agitate with fear”. [82] It is not necessary that the recipients actually have that reaction, the issue is the intent of the sender. [83] It is admitted that the email and attachment were sent as a response to Mr. Schmidt’s statements in the Legislature about thedeath of Margaret Thatcher. The purpose has to be to punish Mr.

Schmidt. [84] The intention was to send to over 40 targeted recipients. This is evidence of planning and deliberation. [85] The communications came with instructions to post far and wide. [86] The communication contained graphic photos of murdered bodies with a text suggesting the bodies were those of Mr. andMrs. Schmidt. [87] The communication referred to Mr.

Schmidt, his assassination and that of his wife and it was hilarious as the gunman put afew bullets into each of them including a couple of well-placed head shots. [88] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the communications were sent to punish Mr. Schmidtfor his comments in the Legislature and that the sender intended to frighten Mr. Schmidt and his wife and cause others to fear for hissafety. [89] I completely disagree with Mr. Laird when he argued it is a political cartoon attacking the character and reputation of Mr.Schmidt through biting sarcasm. [90] I disagree with Mr.

Laird when he argued that “there is no fear, there is no indecency, there is no threat, there is no alarmthere is no annoyance there is only Mr. Schmidt and his two loyal employees who use hypersensitivity, exaggeration, and manipulativemelodrama to create what does not now and never did exist. It is politics as usual.” 3. WAS MR. LAIRD THE SENDER OF THE EMAIL AND ATTACHMENT? [91] There is evidence that Mr. Laird used the email name of D L Alberta, the email address of dlalberta@protonmail.com andthe email signature of Don Laird, Alberta, Canada in his correspondence with the Camrose police in May 2019. [92] Cst.

Sangster identified Don Laird by his photo identification, driver’s license and issued him a seat belt violation ticket. [93] His vehicle registration and driver’s license were entered as exhibits and contained the same name and address used tocomplete the ticket. [94] When he gave Cst. Cossette the ticket to view he was the only one in the room with the officer. He was given Deputy ChiefForeman’s email address as well as Cst.

Cossette’s, and within a few hours, sent an email referencing the conversation and providing thesender’s name and address to which replies by Deputy Chief Foreman were made and obviously received and responded to by Mr. Laird. [95] There is the FOIP request which obviously is sent by Mr. Laird and instructs the officer to use the email address. [96] It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.

Laird used, in May 2019, the email name of D L Alberta, the email address ofdlalberta@protonmail.com and the email signature of Don Laird, Alberta, Canada. [97] There is only circumstantial evidence based on the same email name, signature, and email address that he sent the Schmidtemail on 9 July 2020. [98] In R v Villaroman, 2016 33 SCC our SCC considered circumstantial evidence and the requirement of proof beyond areasonable doubt. [37] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “otherreasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R. v.

Comba, (ON CA), [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d (SCC), [1938] S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, atpara. 20; R. v. Mitchell, [2008] QCA 394 (AustLII), at para. 35. I agree with the appellant that the Crown thus may need to negativethese reasonable possibilities, but certainly does not need to “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful,which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”: R. v.

Bagshaw, (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. “Otherplausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence ofevidence, not on speculation. [42] In R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, 584 A.R. 138, at paras. 22 and 24-25. The court stated that “[c]ircumstantialevidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences”; that the trier of fact should not act on alternative

interpretationsof the circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable; and that alternative inferences must be reasonable, not just possible. [99] Villaroman was accused of possessing pornography on his computer. The issues were whether the Crown had proven beyond

a reasonable doubt that he knew of the pornography on his computer. [ 100 ] At para 65 the court said: As noted, Mr. Villaroman admitted that the laptop was his. He had possession and control of it for the purposes of having it repaired. He delivered it to the shop, paid for the repairs, tried to pick it up, stated that he was the person who could authorize the work and authorized the required repairs. The only user account on the computer, “oswaldvillaroman”, was created using his name. The Limewire software was installed on the computer the same day. There had been almost daily use of the computer since.

Some of the pornography had been stored on the computer for about three months before Mr. Villaroman took it in for repairs. As discussed earlier, the nature of the material would be obvious to a user of the computer who saw the file names. Mr. Villaroman admitted that he resided at the same address as Benigno and Maxima Villaroman, and that neither of them had put the child pornography on the computer. There was no evidence that anyone else lived there or that anyone else had the opportunity to download pornography onto the computer.

While the accused need not lead evidence to show that another person had such access to his laptop, based on the evidence and lack of evidence before the Court, it is speculative to consider whether another person had such an opportunity, let alone to assume that Mr.

Villaroman would be ignorant of the presence of the material on his computer. [ 101 ] The SCC noted that there were gaps in the Crown’s evidence about the offender’s possession and control of the computer, however, concurred with the trial judge’s decision “when considered in light of human experience and the evidence as a whole and the absence of evidence, excluded all reasonable inferences other than guilt”. [ 102 ] The 9 July 2022 Schmidt email on its face was sent by Mr.

Laird and I agree with the Crown that the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that it was in fact sent by him. [ 103 ] The email was signed by Don Laird, Alberta, Canada, and identity of name affords some evidence of identity of person. The more unusual the name, the greater the weight to be attached to the presumption of identity of person. [ 104 ] Mr.

Laird is the owner of the email address dlaberta@protonmail.com which is an unusual address and the email name of D L Alberta is an unusual email name, both of which adds further weight to the inference he used his address and email name to send the email. [ 105 ] To suggest it was not sent by Mr. Laird would require some evidence and there is none. [ 106 ] I agree with the Crown that Mr. Laird’s request to send the email far and wide strongly suggests that Mr. Laird wanted people to know of his concerns about Mr. Schmidt. [ 107 ] There is no evidence that Mr.

Laird lost control of the email address he used in May 2019. There is no evidence that any person other than Mr. Laird had access to the email address, email name, or signature. There is no evidence of hacking, phishing, or improper workings of any computer. [ 108 ] To suggest someone else sent the email and attachment is pure speculation. [ 109 ] Without calling any evidence about email headers, Mr. Laird advised that a header sent with each email contained information including the name of the computer and software user, the name of the internet provider, and the computer from which it was sent.

He argued that as there is better evidence to prove from whom an email was sent, this court should not convict on the evidence entered in court. There is no evidence before the court on headers. [ 110 ] He argued he requested that information and as Crown did not provide it and he was denied his Charter right to make full answer and defence. [ 111 ] I advised Mr. Laird at the start of the trial I would not consider disclosure issues at that point of the proceedings or charter issues as they had not been raised prior to trial or by any applications. [ 112 ] Mr.

Laird is aware of the requirement of pre-trial applications. [ 113 ] I disagreed with him that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. [ 114 ] In his written and oral argument, Mr. Laird stated that the email and attachment were a satirical juxtaposition and lampooning of Mr. Schmidt and an attack on his reputation and character. [ 115 ] I have already found in my decision the email was indecent and alarming in a criminal sense. [ 116 ] He argued that s 372 is limited to sexual offences. I disagree. He provided a copy of the Legislative

summary of Bill C-13 which made changes to s 371. The Purpose of the Bill is stated “To deal with the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and offences committed by means of telecommunication.” [ 117 ] He argued that Mr. Schmidt should sue in civil court if he thought his character or reputation was damaged, but the email should not form the subject matter of a criminal charge. Again, I disagree. The email was a threat to the safety of Mr. Schmidt and his wife and constitutes a criminal offence. [ 118 ] He argued that Mr.

Schmidt welcomes criticism and there are no restrictions given with his email address on the type of email that can be sent. The law restricts the type of emails that can be sent. [ 119 ] He argued that the emails have not been authenticated as required by s 31 of the Canada Evidence Act . [ 120 ] Again, I disagree. All emails appear on their face to be what they claim to be. There is evidence the Camrose emails entered

into evidence were the emails sent and received. Conclusion [ 121 ] I am satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the email and attachment caused a risk of harm to Mr. Laird, his wife, and staff that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society. It interfered with their liberty and autonomy and was psychologically harming to them. The email was indecent. [ 122 ] I am satisfied that the sender intended to cause Mr. Schmidt and others who read the email, alarm for the safety of Mr. Schmidt. [ 123 ] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt Mr.

Laird is the sender of the email. [ 124 ] I convict you of the offence. Heard on the 26 th and 27 th day of September 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 30 th day of November 2023. F.E. LeReverend A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: M. O’Connor S. Johnston for the Crown D. Laird Self Represented