R v Noddle, 2018 BCSC 2013 (Matthews):

[17] In my reasons for judgment on convicting Mr. Noddle, I found that the communications Mr. Noddle sent in December 2017 and February 2018 were largely unintelligible in content, but they were not benign. The communications were directed at Dr. McEachran and drew a connection between her and Mr. Noddle. They made Dr. McEachran feel unsafe and they tormented her.
.
.
.
[57] The first issue I will address is whether a custodial sentence is appropriate. Mr. Noddle has engaged in a pattern of failing to heed the prior attempts to convince him to cease harassing Dr. McEachran and to obey court orders. In such cases, a custodial sentence may be appropriate:Sanchez-Lopez at para 16.
.
.
.
[107] This offence took place over three months as part of a multi-year campaign of unwanted communications. Dr. McEachran’s sense of security was at that time undermined by the fact that Mr. Noddle was not reporting on probation as ordered and no one knew where he was. This was exacerbated when the packages arrived in a bunch shortly after his previous three-year probation order ended.
.
.
.
[110] Mr. Noddle’s previous sentences have been four months for harassment; five months for each of three breaches of recognizance, served concurrently to each other and consecutive to the four-month criminal harassment conviction; and two consecutive six-month sentences for breach of probation. I am of the view that a step-up is warranted.

[111] I order nine months in custody. In doing so, I have considered the totality principle. At the time that sentencing submissions were made, he was serving the second of two six-month sentences for breach of his probation. His second sentence expired on September 6, 2018. If considered as a part of a continuum, this sentence will make his total time in custody 21 months prior to reduction for time served. In my view, this is not an unduly harsh custodial term for these offences in the circumstances.