That is rather contradictory to the ruling I read?

I'll have to read over everything that's been released since, I guess.

The reason that rings false to me is because her fear of safety doesn't have to established from him, it has to be established from harassment in general. That's what the reckless part means, actually.

No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2)

So if the judge accepted recklessly, that means he accepted there was danger, (at least from other sources).

In one of the cases I was involved with, there was anonymous harassment from a group that had established death threats, and the defendant was one person who was not identifiably connected to the death threats.

His repetitive behaviour was reasoned as attaching real possibility to the death threats, even if he was completely unaware of them as he claimed. As in this case, he had been asked to stop, and had a peace bond taken out against him that he had violated.

He was found guilty, though, unlike this case. If he had stopped when asked, and probably if he had stopped when a peace bond was taken out against him, he wouldn't have been charged, and probably not found guilty if he had.

The idea is that otherwise, you could send random anonymous hate messages, and then attach real possibility by sending not-so-anonymous mail or phonecalls that don't mention any such things, but still achieve the fear and effective threat without real evidence towards you.

And that's why it's not the same charge as threatening people. That would be assault: c-46, section 265, subsection (1)(b).