Extortion

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping, extortion, using an imitation firearm, administering a noxious substance, aggravated assault, fraud, and failing to comply with probation.

The victim was held for 12-14 hours, extorted, and tortured with boiling liquid, resulting in severe burns.

The Crown sought 12 years, while the defence sought 7-8 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced from 11 years due to mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns and COVID-19) and restrictive bail conditions.

After applying Summers credit, the remaining sentence was 7 years and 3 months.

The appellant, a massage therapist, appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a client.

He argued the trial judge erred by not considering the defence of accident, by drawing a negative credibility inference from his failure to ask about the allegations when confronted by the complainant's husband, and by dismissing the husband's evidence as irrelevant to the extortion theory.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the defence of accident, that the credibility findings were reasonable, and that the trial judge properly considered and rejected the extortion theory.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and extortion after allegedly forcing his ex-girlfriend to have sex with him by threatening to show revealing photos of her to her parents.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be vague, lacking in detail, and inconsistent, particularly regarding her interactions with the accused and her memory of key events.

Consequently, the court held that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The offender was convicted of counselling to kidnap and extort his former lawyers, whom he blamed for financial losses.

He recruited an accomplice, purchased a shotgun and ammunition, and provided the accomplice with the lawyers' details and money.

The court found the targeting of justice system participants and the purchase of a firearm to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 8 months.

The accused was convicted of extortion and sexual assault following a six-day trial, and subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple additional charges including breaches of probation, criminal harassment, uttering threats, luring minors, and making sexually explicit material available to minors.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, with the accused having received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing considered the offender's borderline intelligence, his pattern of targeting young women and girls through online manipulation, and the serious harm caused to the victim.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with emphasis on treatment at a specialized facility.

The appellant, a numbered company controlled by Ali Karimi, appealed a motion judge's decision to stay civil proceedings for abuse of process.

The civil actions sought damages for alleged theft against the respondents.

The respondents had previously been victims in a 2011 criminal trial where Karimi was convicted of extortion and criminal harassment based on false theft allegations against them.

The motion judge found that permitting the civil actions to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, as it would allow Karimi to continue the persecution for which he had been criminally convicted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding that the motion judge properly applied the abuse of process doctrine and that it was open to conclude the jury implicitly found no theft had occurred.

The Crown applied to exclude the public from the courtroom pursuant to section 486(1) of the Criminal Code while the complainant testified at a preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including extortion, sexual assault, invitation to touch, permitting a person under 16 to be in premises for sexual activity, sexual interference, and defamatory libel.

The complainant, a member of the Afghan community, feared serious repercussions including physical violence and social isolation if her identity became known.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the complainant had a genuine and objectively reasonable fear for her physical safety and that excluding the public was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

A 17-year-old youth pleaded guilty to four counts of internet luring, one count of possession of child pornography, and eleven counts of extortion.

The offences occurred over a two-and-a-half-month period between May and August 2014, involving the solicitation of explicit images from minors via Facebook and subsequent threats to publish those images unless additional images were provided.

The youth targeted vulnerable victims, including a 12-year-old, a 13-year-old, and a 15-year-old autistic girl.

The court imposed a custodial sentence with conditions addressing the serious nature of the offences, the youth's lack of remorse and insight, and his pattern of breaching court orders.

A jury trial arising from the kidnapping, extortion, assault, and unlawful confinement of the complainant.

The court issued written reasons for numerous pre‑trial and mid‑trial rulings including mistrial motions, evidentiary disputes, cell tower evidence admissibility, video‑link testimony under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code, interpretation issues under s. 14 of the Charter, and jury charge requests.

The court dismissed several defence mistrial applications, permitted certain Crown evidence including cell tower records as factual evidence, allowed video‑link testimony from a witness abroad, and provided jury instructions concerning fabricated statements and the Browne v. Dunn rule.

The jury ultimately convicted two accused and acquitted one.

The accused were charged with seventeen counts including uttering threats, forcible confinement, extortion, assault, intimidation, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and firearms offences.

The charges arose from incidents occurring in late November and early December 2013 in an apartment building in Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused took over an apartment and committed various crimes within it.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the accused guilty on several counts related to possession of a prohibited firearm, threatening with a firearm, and extortion, but acquitted them on other counts including unlawful confinement and various assault-related charges.

Sentencing decision involving two offenders who pleaded guilty to charging a criminal interest rate and extortion arising from a long‑running loan‑sharking operation.

The offenders charged borrowers an effective annual interest rate of approximately 520% and used threats and violence to collect payments.

The court considered denunciation and deterrence under s. 718 of the Criminal Code but found that conditional sentences remained legally available due to the timing of the offences.

Despite significant aggravating factors, including exploitation of vulnerable borrowers and organized criminal activity, the court imposed conditional sentences given the offenders’ guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal records, restitution, and other mitigating circumstances.

Conditional sentence orders, restitution, forfeiture, fines, probation, and ancillary orders were imposed.

Sentencing decision following convictions for numerous fraud‑related offences including theft over $5000, possession of property obtained by crime, extortion, intimidation, possession of devices for forging credit cards, fraudulent possession and use of credit card data, and forgery.

Police discovered sophisticated equipment used to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and identification, as well as extensive stolen credit card data.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving similar offences and prior custodial sentences, including a sentence in the United States.

The court emphasized the seriousness of organized credit card fraud and the importance of deterrence, while acknowledging limited prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

The accused was convicted at trial of extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended the victim's home, left a phone number, and threatened the victim's wife, stating that if her husband did not call back they should "watch out." This initiated an escalating series of intimidation and threats designed to extort $54,000 from the victim.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence.

The court appointed an amicus to assist the unrepresented accused in identifying mitigating factors and reviewing relevant sentencing precedents.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody less credit for 79 days time served, followed by three years of probation with conditions including a prohibition on contact with the victim and a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code seeking a publication ban prohibiting disclosure of the complainant’s identity in a prosecution involving allegations of criminal harassment and extortion arising from a personal relationship.

The court considered the statutory factors under s. 486.5(7) and the open court principle, applying the test articulated in R. v. Mentuck.

The evidence indicated that publication of the complainant’s identity could expose her to significant harm, including employment consequences, because the alleged extortion involved threats to publicize the relationship.

The court concluded that a limited ban referring to the complainant only by initials was necessary for the proper administration of justice and that the salutary effects outweighed any deleterious impact on openness.

The accused was charged with extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused, along with others, demanded $54,000 from the complainant by falsely claiming it was a legitimate business debt related to a shipping contract.

The accused denied direct involvement and claimed he was merely helping a friend.

The court found the complainant and his wife credible witnesses and accepted their testimony regarding the accused's involvement in making threats and demands for payment.

The court convicted the accused, finding that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a certiorari application seeking to quash committal to trial on charges of assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, and extortion following a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant argued that the evidence did not establish a causal connection between the alleged assault and the complainant’s serious injuries and that the extortion charge lacked evidence of intent to obtain property.

Applying the committal test articulated in R. v. Arcuri, the court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer that the injuries were caused by the alleged assault based on common sense inferences from the evidence.

The court also found sufficient evidence that violence was used to obtain control of the disputed property during the altercation.

The application to quash the indictment was dismissed.

The accused was charged with procuring a person to become a prostitute, exercising control over a prostitute, living on the avails of prostitution, and extortion.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a young woman from Poland who came to Canada and engaged in sex work.

The accused testified that he provided logistical assistance to the complainant at her request, including renting hotel rooms and posting advertisements, but denied procuring her into prostitution, exercising control over her, or threatening her.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, including material contradictions with her grandfather's evidence and inconsistencies regarding her knowledge of certain premises.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to extortion under section 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

He threatened to disseminate intimate images of a young female complainant unless she engaged in sexual intercourse with him.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months custody plus probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months or alternatively 90 days intermittent jail.

The central issue was whether the offence constituted a "serious personal injury offence" that would preclude a conditional sentence.

The court found that the threats, while abhorrent and extortionate, did not constitute violence or attempted violence as contemplated by the legislation, distinguishing the case from robbery or assault cases involving weapons.

The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including 12 months house arrest, followed by 21 months probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to twelve charges arising from a domestic relationship involving multiple assaults, unlawful confinement, extortion, threats, obstruction of justice, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, credited on a 1.5:1 basis for two years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and her family, anger management counselling, and weapons prohibitions.

Following a jury verdict finding the accused guilty of sexual assault and extortion arising from the same incident, the court considered the application of the Kienapple principle prohibiting multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court analyzed whether there was both a factual nexus and a legal nexus between the offences.

The threats used to induce sexual activity and the sexual acts themselves occurred in the same location, in immediate succession, and formed part of a single course of conduct.

Because the elements of the particularized extortion offence subsumed the elements of sexual assault, the offences shared the same underlying cause.

The court held that the Kienapple rule applied and stayed the sexual assault conviction while entering conviction for extortion.