Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Offences - Elements of offence - Extortion - Indictment - Whether Court of Appeal erred in entering conviction instead of ordering new trial - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge had made critical errors of law because he had confused motive for act of extortion with very existence of that act - Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence supported finding beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant had participated in act of extortion with respect to $1,500 debt - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that only logical inference to be drawn from evidence adduced was that Appellant had participated in act of extortion.

The Appellant is charged with extortion contrary to s. 346(1) and (1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code. According to the Respondent, he used a false acknowledgement of debt for $1,500 as a pretext to coerce a person into giving him a share in the Mobilair company, which that person hoped to buy if the required financing could be obtained. At trial, the judge acquitted the Appellant on the basis that the indictment had been poorly drafted and that its subject had been misstated. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in law by confusing the motive for the act of extortion with the very existence of that act and that his judgment was inconsistent with the whole of the evidence that had been adduced before him concerning the commission of the offence described in the indictment. The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal, reversed the trial judgment, found the Appellant guilty of extortion and referred the case back to the trial court for sentencing.