346

Extortion

346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Extortion

(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Subsequent offences

(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1 or 344 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

Sequence of convictions only

(1.3) For the purposes of subsection (1.2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

Saving

(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.

Annotations | French

  • Section 346

     

  • “Extortion” means to induce anyone to do something or gain something by threats, accusations, menace or violence. For the accused to be convicted, it is not necessary that the extortion be succesful and that the accused gain what they were seeking: R v Noël, 2001 NBCA 80 at para 9 ; R v Davis, 1999 CanLII 638 (SCC)

     

  • Extortion “criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice”: R v Davis, 1999 CanLII 638 (SCC) at para 45.

     

  • The pursuit of the extortion can be “anything” which should be read as the “wide, unrestricted dictionary definition” of the term: R v Davis, 1999 CanLII 638 (SCC) at para 44.

     

  • This broad interpretation of the word “anything” means that the term is not limited to “things of a proprietary or pecuniary nature”. The word “anything” includes sexual favours. For example, it is a crime to threaten exposure of nude photographs when coupled with a demand for sex: R v Davis, 1999 CanLII 638 (SCC) at paras 44-46; R v DGS, 2004 CanLII 7198 (Ont CA) at para 8.

     

  • That the accused had an honest belief that what was demanded was owed is not a defence to the charge of extortion. For a reasonable justification defence to apply, the accused must both believe that what was demanded is owed and that there was “a reasonable justification or excuse for making the threats or menaces by which the accused sought to compel compliance”: R v Natarelli, 1967 CanLII 11 (SCC)

     

  • In short, the totality of the accused’s conduct must be “considered in deciding whether the threat to collect a legitimate debt was made without reasonable justification or excuse”: R v Alexander, 2005 CanLII 32566 at para 78.

     

  • A reasonable justification is assessed by asking the question of whether “a reasonable person on the accused’s position would have formed” the view that the threats were reasonably justifiable or excusable: R v Alexander, 2005 CanLII 32566 at para 78.

     

  • A threat to cause grievous bodily harm or to kill can never be reasonably justified. For example, if an accused is found to have made a threat to kill or cause bodily harm to secure funds, believed were owed to them, the defence of reasonable justification could not succeed: R v Alexander, 2005 CanLII 32566 at para 77; R v Natarelli, 1967 CanLII 11 (SCC)

     

  • Where there is found to be an air of reality to the defence of reasonable justification, the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no such justification exits: R v Alexander, 2005 CanLII 32566 at para 74.

     

In Tags