R v Monroe, 2023 ABCJ 142

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Monroe, 2023 ABCJ 142 Date: 20230620 Docket: 221013733P1 Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King - and - Michael Robert Monroe Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.5 . By Court Order:

(1) Information that could identify [SJ] shall not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way.

(2) No person shall publish, broadcast, or transmit in any way the contents of the publication ban application or the evidence, information or submissions at the hearing of the application. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. Decision of the Honourable Justice B.C. Stevenson THE CHARGES [ 1 ] The accused Monroe is charged with four Criminal offences, all allegedly occurring on October 17, 2022 in Calgary, Alberta. 1. Criminal Harassment, contrary to s. 264(2)(c); 2. Threats, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a);

3. Disobeying a Court Order, contrary to s. 127(1), and 4. Mischief, contrary to s. 430(1)(c). [ 2 ] A trial on those four charges was held before me on May 8 and 9, 2023. The matter is here today for my decision. [ 3 ] Crown Counsel is Ms. Karuna Ramakrishnan. [ 4 ] Defence Counsel is Mr.

Bjoern Wolkmann BACKGROUND [ 5 ] Pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code , a Statement of Admitted Facts was marked as Exhibit 1. [ 6 ] The Statement of Admitted Facts revealed that during the period 2016-2019 the accused had a history of involvement with a radio station in Calgary, and with several of the station’s employees, resulting in the following court proceedings: [ 7 ] January 17, 2017 – arrested and charged with criminally harassing SJ, a morning co-host at the radio station, contrary to s. 264(2)(c). [ 8 ] January 17, 2017 – released from custody at 9:29 P.M. [ 9 ] January 18, 2017 – attended at the radio station at 8:40 A.M. and was arrested. [ 10 ] August 18, 2917 – convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration. [ 11 ] June 16, 2019 – released from custody. [ 12 ] June 24, 2019 – attended at the front of the radio station at 6:15 AM; stared into the booth where the alleged victim SJ and fellow DJ AB were working – both recognized from numerous prior incidents and were fearful -accused was carrying a navy bag that appeared to be a tool bag or soft briefcase – at this time the accused was under a condition to not go to the radio station and no contact with SJ or the radio station - accused tried to access the interior through the front door but it was locked. [ 13 ] SJ called the police and reported the incident. [ 14 ] June 27, 2019 – at approximately 8:00 AM the accused again showed up in front of the radio station and banged on the window of the DJ booth, waving at SJ.

She was startled and scared (terrified). He then entered the building through the main front doors, tried the door to the studio where SJ was working. [ 15 ] April 7, 2020 – convicted and sentenced for harassing SJ. SJ’s Victim Impact Statement dated February 10, 2020 (Exhibit 2) was entered at the sentencing. In the Statement, SJ states: “I was unable to leave my house without feeling afraid. I felt I needed an escort and at one point thought I was being followed and my heart was pounding.

I’ve never been so scared”. [ 16 ] As to the economic impact as a result of the accused’s actions: “I had to pay for underground parking and Ubers and Cabs because Michael [the accused] recognized my car. I didn’t want him to follow me home”. [ 17 ] As to fears for security, SJ states: “I felt as though everyone at work was at risk.

I felt as though Michael could drop by and threaten our entire office, not to mention anyone that was around me, if he were to have found me outside of work”. [ 18 ] On June 20, 2022, the accused was released after serving a term of incarceration and transported to Calgary by bus. [ 19 ] Between June 20 and June 27, 2022, the accused attended the radio station four times, and radio staff notified the Calgary Police Service as a result. [ 20 ] On June 29, 2022, Constable Sandalack located the accused in downtown Calgary and advised him not to return to the radio station or he would be charged with trespassing. [ 21 ] Between July 2 and October 14, 2022, the accused was in custody. [ 22 ] The Court Record of earlier proceedings involving the accused on an unrelated criminal charge was entered in these proceedings as Exhibit 3.

In those proceedings, on October 14, 2022, a common law Peace Bond was imposed by the Court with a condition that the accused keep the peace and be of good behavior. [ 23 ] On October 17, 2022, three days following his release from custody, the accused attended the offices of the radio station twice that morning. After failing to gain access to the radio station office area, at the window entrance the accused began to shout threats toward employees on the other side of the window, including one where he threatened to cut the receptionist’s head off.

While she believed those words were shouted at her, a transcript of a video taken records that the words used were “I’ll cut you electric off too, man. I’ll cut your electric off. I’ll cut your shit off.” [ 24 ] The police were again called, and the accused was arrested”. VIVA VOCE TESTIMONY

[ 25 ] Constable Sandalack of the Calgary Police Service High Risk Offender Unit confirms his meeting with the accused on June 29th, 2022, and the advice given to him not to attend at the radio station. [ 26 ] SJ testified that she arrived at work on October 17, 2022 shortly after 5:00 AM and heard the accused yelling her name. She called the police but when they arrived the accused had gone. She started the show at 7:00 AM and the accused came back. She then hid out of view of the accused. The police came back and arrested the accused.

She testified that she was upset and uncomfortable. [ 27 ] AB, who co-hosted the morning show with SJ, testified that he knew the accused from several earlier visits by the accused to the radio station, and that the visits had affected him in several ways. He adjusted his parking for safety reasons, and felt threatened, intimidated by the accused’s physical size and worried about more visits by the accused.

At one point he yelled at the accused to “get out of here, you’re not supposed to be here”, whereupon the accused advised AB that he owned the building. [ 28 ] JM, former program director at the station, testified remotely. He advised that he had an office on the fourth floor, and that he was familiar with the accused’s background. Due to that knowledge, JM set up a safety plan in case the accused made further visits to the station. [ 29 ] On one of the prior visits he met the accused in person.

At that meeting the accused told JM that he had music that the station should be playing, and that he owned the station. JM advised the accused that there was nothing for him at the station, that he was upsetting some staff, and that he had to leave. [ 30 ] On October 17, 2022, the date of the alleged offences, and being aware that the accused had visited the station earlier that day, he went to the lobby to speak with the accused. He testified that the accused was agitated, that he owned the station, and that he should be let in.

When he was asked to leave, the accused began yelling at CM, the receptionist and DC, another staff member. The conduct of the accused was videoed. He stated that he felt scared and intimidated by the accused’s conduct. JM believed that the accused threatened to “cut CM’s head off”. [ 31 ] The police arrived and arrested the accused. After the police and the accused left the station, JM met with both SJ and AB, and noted that SJ was frightened, as was himself. [ 32 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Wolkmann suggested that JM may have misheard the words of the threat made to Ms.

CM, and he disagreed. [ 33 ] DC was in the reception area when the accused was yelling and shouting through the window that separated him from JM and CM, and when he was advised that he was not welcome and should leave, the accused advised him that he was DC’s boss and on two occasions purported to fire him. [ 34 ] DC testified that he was intimidated and shocked by the accused’s words and conduct. [ 35 ] CM, the station’s receptionist, testified that as soon as she saw the accused get off the elevator, she called the police. She stated that she was scared, nervous and felt threatened.

While she was on the phone to the police, she heard the accused threaten to cut her head off and took the threat seriously. She relayed the threat to the police on the phone. She testified that she felt safer after the police arrived, but that later she suffered from anxiety, not knowing what the next actions by the accused might be. [ 36 ] When the police arrived, responding to what the constable testified was a trespass call, he noted that JM, CM and DC all looked scared. He also noted that the accused was very agitated and loud and didn’t acknowledge the presence of the police.

The officer handcuffed the accused after arresting him for trespassing. Shortly after that arrest he advised the accused that he was also being charged with uttering threats. [ 37 ] Following the close of the Crown’s evidence, the accused elected not to call evidence. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL [ 38 ] Ms. Ramakrishnan seeks convictions on all four counts. [ 39 ] Mr. Wolkmann concedes that there should be convictions of Counts 3 (Disobeying a Court Order) and 4 (mischief), but that his client should be acquitted on Counts 1 (Harassment) and 2 (threats).

ANALYSIS Count 1: [ 40 ] In the Alberta Court of Appeal decision of R v Sidhu , 2021 ABCA, the Alberta Court of Appeal referenced their decision of R v Sillipp (1997), ABCA 346 (leave to appeal refused), where the Court sets out the essential elements of the offence at para. 25: “1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264(2) (a), (b), (

c) or (

d) of the Criminal Code . 2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed. 3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or willfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed.

4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and 5) It must be established that the complainant’s fear was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.” [41] In paras. 26 and 27 of Sidhu, the Court states: “ 26. Whether the conduct of an accused amounts to criminal harassment is to be viewed objectively, taking into consideration all of thecircumstances of the case: Sillipp, Para. 26; R v McBride, 2018 ONCA 323 (Ont. C.A.) para. 21.

Objective evaluation of all thecircumstances does not exclude consideration of the particular vulnerabilities of the complainant: Sillipp, para.27. Assessment of thereasonableness of a complainant’s fear takes into account the gender of the victim, the history and circumstances of the relationship, andthe state of mind of the victim: R v Lafreniere, [1994] O.J, No. 437 (Ont. Prov. Div.) paras. 21-23; R v Labrentz, 2010 ABPC 11 (Alta.Prov. Ct.), paras, 110, 147 (2010), 27 Alta L.R. (5th) 319 (Alta. Prov. Ct.).

Physical injury or threat need not be present in order for thecomplainant to experience reasonable fear, and such reasonable fear includes mental, emotional or psychological trauma, R v Gowing,[1994] O.J. No. 1696 (Ont. Prov. Div.), para.9; R v Hertz (1995), (AB CJ), 170 A.R. 139 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), para. 36;R v F (J), [2001] O.J. No. 2054 (Ont. S,C.J.), para. 28; and see R v Lofstrom, (2018 ABCA 5 (Alta C.A.), para. 54, (2018) , 65 Alta L.R.(6th) 41 (Alta. C.A.); Sillipp, paras. 3-7.

The element of subjective fear does not require the victims be terrified or suffer ill health or amajor disruption, and it is not necessary that the complainants use the term “fear” in their testimony: R v Rancourt, 2020 QCCA 933(C.A. Que.), paras. 35-38, (2020), 65 C.R. (7th)143 (C.A. Que).” “27. In addressing the reasonableness of the complainant’s fear, a trial judge is to look to the totality of the circumstances, consider themeasures taken to discourage the conduct, and the nature and extent of the accused’s conduct: R v Sanchez, 2102 BCCA 469 (B.C.

C.A.,para. 77, 2012 BCCA 469 , 2012, 294 C.C.C. (3d) 290 (B.C.C.A.), Rancourt, para. 39. [42] Taking all of the circumstances into account, and applying the above legal principles, I have no hesitation in deciding that theaccused, Michael Robert Monroe, committed the offence set out in Count 1, namely, that he “on or about the 17th day of October, 2022,did, without lawful authority and knowing that SJ is harassed, engage in besetting or watching the dwelling house, or place where SJ oranyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, that causes SJ reasonable, in all circumstances to fear fortheir safety or the safety of anyone known to them, contrary to s.264(2)(

c) of the Criminal Code. [43] He is Guilty of Count 1. Count 2: [44] ……..alleges that during the incident the accused did knowingly utter, convey or cause CM to receive a threat to cause deathor bodily harm to CM, contrary to

section 264.1 (1) (

A) of the Criminal Code. [45] The accused was attempting to gain access to the area where CM, JM and DC were located. Separating the three from theaccused was a locked glass door. At the time of the alleged threat CM was on the phone to the police. [46] The accused was waving his arms and shouting toward the three, and the matter was videoed and recorded.

In earlier dealingswith the station, he had made statements that he owned the building, that he was entitled to access because of that, that the radio stationemployees worked for him, and he threatened to fire DC. [47] DC recorded a part of the accused’s diatribe: [48] Accused: “You want a paycheque? You want a job? You wanna keep your job? You wanna go back (inaudible) with the soilwork. It’s fucking (inaudible), drills and pipe (inaudible), get a pay cheque. It’s five (inaudible). I’ll cut you electric off too, man. I’ll cutyour electric off. I’ll cut your shit off. I will.

Straight up, I will…” [49] The audio recording stopped at that point. [50] Ms. Ramakrishnan submitted that the threat was made following the recording mentioned above. [51] As mentioned earlier, CM testified that she heard the accused shout “I’ll cut your head off”. JM and DC stated that they alsoheard those words shouted by the accused. In cross-examination, when Mr. Wolkmann suggested to JM that he had mis-heard the words,he disagreed, maintaining that that was what he heard.

DC stated that he was shocked and intimidated by the accused’s words andconduct. [52] CM took the threat seriously. [53] I am satisfied that during the lengthy diatribe by the accused in his state of frustration at not being allowed to enter the areawhere he wanted to enter, a portion of which was recorded by DC, the accused either uttered the words believed to have been heard bythe three - CM, JM, and DC – or that they were actually uttered outside of the recorded portion of the diatribe – in either case theyclearly constitute a threat, and that they prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

He is guilty of Count 2. Counts 3 and 4: [54] As mentioned earlier, Mr. Wolkmann concedes that the accused is guilty of Counts 3 and 4.

Summary:

[ 55 ] The accused, Michael Robert Monroe, is found Guilty of all four charges in the Information. Delivered orally on the 29 th day of May, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20 th day of June, 2023. B.C. Stevenson A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Karuna Ramakrishnan for the Crown Bjoern Wolkmann for the Accused