Insufficient Particularity in the Information

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-17
CLNP Page ID:	2008
Page Categories:	[POA General Defences]
Citation:	Insufficient Particularity in the Information, CLNP 2008, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-17
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/09/20

R. v. Morschauser, 2006 ONCJ 88 (CanLII)

[33] The court in the Thoen decision said at paragraph 8: "it is apparent that no particular instances or allegations are specified which are said to form the basis of the complainant's fears. The defendant is not given enough basic information to identify the basis of the complaint against him and consequently does not put him on notice of the case he will have to meet. Was the complainant's fears brought about by an assault? By verbal threats? By written threats? By telephone threats? What are the personal injuries feared by the complainant? There should be more particulars as to where the offence took place other than to state that the offence took place at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I find that the information is defective in substance."

[34] The Crown argues that in the present case there are sufficient particulars, and that if you consider section 264, conduct other than verbal conduct can put fear into a complainant. The information in the present case states three types of conduct that form the basis of the complaint for a period of time between two dates in 2005, namely:

"will cause personal injury to or will damage the property of Elisabeth Bauer on account of a threat made between the 11 day of January 2005 and the 1 day of April 2005 at the City of Kitchener and Town of Baden in the words or to the effect following, that is to say, ...unwanted telephone calls, following, hiring private investigator..."

[35] In reference to the suggested forms of charges at the back of the 2006 Edition of Martin's Annual Criminal Code at page A/59, where short examples of wording are included for reference, I am satisfied that the short version of words used in the herein information are sufficient, and I accept the reasoning submitted by the Crown that this conduct could be threatening, such as would be contemplated in a section 264 charge, and can therefore form the basis of a section 810 fear.

[36] I am further satisfied that the words "unwanted telephone calls, following, hiring private investigator" together provide sufficient particularity as to distinguish this case from Thoen and, when combined with the range of dates and locations provided, gives the defendants enough information to identify the basis of the complainants fears.

[37] The second ground for declaring this information a nullity is therefore dismissed. The matter will be scheduled for a hearing on its merits against both defendants.