R. v. Dexter

R. v. Dexter

On the totality of the evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused repeatedly communicated with the complainant, despite warnings, and that his conduct, including threatening language and behaviour, caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety; the accused knew or was reckless/wilfully blind to the risk of harassment, therefore guilty of criminal harassment contrary to s.264(2)(b).

Citation
2015 NSPC 94
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Stephen Lee Dexter; Complainant: Lisa Dexter
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Criminal Harassment (s.264(2)(b) Criminal Code) / Trial — Verdict (oral Decision)
Outcome
Guilty of criminal harassment contrary to s.264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Criminal Harassment, Section 264(2)(b), Mens Rea (knowledge/recklessness), Reasonable Fear, Repeated Communications, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Family Law Domestic Violence Criminal Harassment Section 264(2)(b) Mens Rea (knowledge/recklessness) Reasonable Fear Repeated Communications +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Stephen Lee Dexter

Accused

Lisa Dexter

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Criminal Harassment (s.264(2)(b) Criminal Code) / Trial — Verdict (oral Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused repeatedly communicated with the complainant as defined by s.264(2)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the complainant was harassed
  3. 3 Whether the accused knew or was reckless/wilfully blind that his conduct was harassing

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused repeatedly communicated with the complainant, despite warnings, and that his conduct, including threatening language and behaviour, caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety; the accused knew or was reckless/wilfully blind to the risk of harassment, therefore guilty of criminal harassment contrary to s.264(2)(b).

Court Disposition

Guilty of criminal harassment contrary to s.264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code