Possibly. I can't comment on what processes or what at all Canadian Police do, or whether they would contact Australian Police.
It would obviously require that it meet certain standards of harassment in both (or one) countries to be met. It's somewhat hard to "stalk" someone while in another country. It's obviously possible to harass, but then it comes down to whether or not they deem it serious enough to engage with another country to do something, as it would require both countries to do something I would imagine to actually get a prosecution. What could occur is that that person could be visited by your friendly neighbourhood police and asked not to engage with them or cease whatever it was that they were doing.
15.31 This section outlines a range of Commonwealth, state and territory criminal offences for conduct that amounts to harassment. There appear to be some gaps in state laws, and it seems Commonwealth cyber-harassment laws could be clearer and more actively enforced.State stalking and harassment...
www.alrc.gov.au
The Commonwealth
Criminal Code, set out in the schedule to the
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), provides for an offence of ‘using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence’ and ‘using a carriage service to make a threat’. These would capture conduct amounting to harassment, for example, via the internet, including social media, and telephone.
The specifics of the Offence being
474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
You might question the Commonwealths Jurisdiction and applicability of Australian Law, but as set out in the same act,:
If this section applies to a particular offence, a person does not commit the offence unless:
(a) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs:
(i) wholly or partly in Australia; or
(ii) wholly or partly on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; or
(b) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly outside Australia and a result of the conduct occurs:
(i) wholly or partly in Australia; or
(ii) wholly or partly on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; or
(c) all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the alleged offence is an ancillary offence;
(ii) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly outside Australia;
(iii) the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur, wholly or partly in Australia or wholly or partly on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship.
And further to that:
If this section applies to a particular offence, a person does not commit the offence if:
(aa) the alleged offence is a primary offence; and
(a) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and
(b) there is not in force in:
(i) the foreign country where the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs; or
(ii) the part of the foreign country where the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs;
a law of that foreign country, or a law of that part of that foreign country, that creates an offence that corresponds to the first‑mentioned offence.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).
(4) For the purposes of the application of subsection 13.3(3) to an offence, subsection (3) of this section is taken to be an exception provided by the law creating the offence.
I would argue that the conduct constituting the offence occurred in Australia assuming it was typed here, and sent from a computer or device inside Australia with an Australian IP address, through Australian internet before ending up in Canada. And even if that wasn't satisfied, it can be argued that Canada has laws that create an offence that correspond to the same, namely being from
Criminal Code - R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46:
Criminal harassment
- 264 (1) 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) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
- Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
- (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
- (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
- (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
- (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
- Punishment
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of
- (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
- (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
