Montgomery to face harasser again
I had thought the issue of Sue Montgomery and the man who has been dogging her steps for years was settled, but she’s going to have to face him again in court. The last time, a judge drew a fine line, saying there had been harassment but it wasn’t criminal.
John B 21:50 on 2021-03-27 Permalink
At least the reason she has to face him again is that the higher court said that the lower court was wrong to draw the line that the harassment wasn’t criminal because Sue Montgomery wasn’t scared enough.
rich 00:13 on 2021-03-28 Permalink
This case recalls what the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Quartey, 2018 SCC 59, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 687
“[3] Nor did the trial judge err by applying generalizations and stereotypes in rejecting the appellant’s evidence. We agree with the majority at the Court of Appeal that the trial judge’s statements in this regard were directed to the appellant’s own evidence and to the believability of the appellant’s claims about how he responded to the specific circumstances of this case, and not to some stereotypical understanding of how men in those circumstances would conduct themselves.”
The trial judge did not err when she compared Sue Montgomery on the video to Sue Montgomery in her own testimony,… that is what Judge Longo did, she did not … compare Sue Montgomery to a stereotype. Considering the favourable findings of fact by Judge Longo, due in part to Montgomery forgetting the events giving rise to the other charges which were not appealed, an appeal would appear the best thing to do. The new judge would not know that Montgomery forgot about those events indicating that they really did not bother her to the point of causing her to fear.