R. v. Curtis, 2022 NLSC 66
[9] To establish extortion, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (i) that the accused has induced or attempted to induce someone to do something or to cause something to be done; (ii) that the accused has used threats, accusations, menaces or violence; (iii) that the accused has done so with the intention of obtaining something by the use of threats; and (iv) that either the use of the threats or the making of the demand for the thing sought to be obtained was without reasonable justification or excuse (R v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51 at para. 53).
[10] The following principles apply to an assessment of extortion:
a. The accused’s actions should not be assessed in isolation. The accused’s course of conduct is to be assessed in its entirety and in context (R. v. Natarelli, 1967 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1967] S.C.R. 539 at 546, Barros at para. 54 and 56, R. v. Blake (2005), 2005 CanLII 32566 (ON CA), 206 CCC (3d) 233, 202 O.A.C. 54, (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 31118 (March 2, 2006).
b. The offence of extortion is aimed at those who would use coercion to overcome the free will of others for the purpose of attracting some gain (Blake at para. 71). Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice (R. v. Davis, 1999 CanLII 638 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759 at para. 45).
c. The word “anything” as used in section 346(1) should be given a “wide, unrestricted application” (Davis at para. 58).
d. The threat does not have to be unlawful. The potential for a threat to overwhelm a person’s free choice and compel that person to act in the manner dictated by the threat is not necessarily tied to the lawfulness of the conduct constituting the threat (Blake at para. 79).
e. A veiled reference may constitute a threat if it is sufficient, in light of all of the circumstances, to convey to the person targeted the consequences which he or she fears or would prefer to avoid. The question is: what would a reasonable person in the position of that person understand? (Barros at paras. 61 and 64).
f. Although it is referred to as the defence of “reasonable justification or excuse”, as long as there is an air of reality to the claim, the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of any reasonable justification or excuse (Blake at para. 74).
g. When an accused advances a reasonable justification or excuse defence, the inquiry is partially objective. The ultimate question is not whether the particular accused believed his or her threats were reasonably justifiable or excusable, but whether a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have formed that view (Blake at para. 74).
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire