Extortion Lawyers Toronto

Extortion is defined in section 346 of the Criminal Code. A person commits extortion when they induce, or try to induce, anyone to do anything or cause anything to be done, by threats, accusations, menaces, or violence, without reasonable justification or excuse, and with the intent to obtain anything. It is an indictable offence. It does not matter whether the person threatened, accused, menaced, or shown violence is the same person who is pressured to act.

The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused used threats, accusations, menaces, or violence; that they did so to induce someone to do something or cause something to be done; that they intended to obtain something; that there was no reasonable justification or excuse; and the identity of the accused.

No. Attempting to obtain something is a way of committing the full offence. The conviction should be for extortion, not attempted extortion, even if the target never gives in.

No. Extortion can be committed through veiled threats. The court looks at the accused’s conduct in the context of their entire course of behaviour. The threat also does not have to be one the accused would carry out personally.

No. A threat to start civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of section 346.

Sextortion is extortion where the thing demanded is sexual — images, video, or sexual acts — or where the threat is to share intimate images. Sexual favours can be the “anything” sought to be extorted. In one case, an accused was convicted of extortion for threatening to publish old images of the complainant in a state of undress unless she sent him new images of herself.

Since July 18, 2026, a sexual nature or purpose must be treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing, and a threat to share an intimate image is also a separate offence under section 162.1(1.1).

Not without a threat, accusation, menace, or violence. In one case, a lawyer for security company employees suspected of theft and receiving stolen goods asked the company’s lawyer for $10,000 to avoid bad publicity. That request was not extortion because there was no threat, accusation, menace, or violence.

Not by itself. A right to the thing demanded, or an honest belief in that right, is not a defence on its own. There must be a reasonable justification or excuse not only for the demand, but also for the threats or menaces used to compel compliance with it.

It is a matter outside the elements of the offence that justifies or excuses conduct that would otherwise be extortion. An accused who relies on it accepts that they made the threat with the required intent, but argues that the circumstances justify or at least excuse what they did.

It is impossible to list every circumstance that could qualify: the defence is specific to the facts and to the offence. For example, what may be a reasonable excuse for possessing counterfeit money would probably have no relevance to a reasonable excuse for possessing house-breaking instruments. There is no purpose in distinguishing between “justification” and “excuse” — courts treat the phrase as a single question.

The Crown. The ultimate burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of any reasonable justification or excuse. The word “reasonable” makes the test partly objective: the question is not whether the accused believed the threats were justified or excusable, but whether a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have formed that view.

It can. The phrase “reasonable justification or excuse” exists to separate people who use tactics that could reasonably be regarded as warranted or legitimate, even if harsh, to collect a debt, from people whose methods go beyond that. It draws the line, for criminal purposes, between hard bargaining and criminal blackmail. That line can be difficult to draw, and like any factual issue it turns on the judge’s or jury’s assessment of the evidence and the burden of proof.

The judge or jury must consider all of the circumstances, including the nature of the threat and the nature of the demand. Juries are told that not every distasteful threat used to support a legitimate demand for repayment is extortion: the threat must go beyond what a reasonable person in the accused’s circumstances would see as a legitimate or warranted way to collect the debt. For example, a threat to have someone fired to force payment of an unrelated debt owed by the complainant’s wife was found to go beyond anything a reasonable person could see as justified.

No, not for the same conduct. Under the Kienapple principle, a person cannot be convicted of both extortion and robbery arising from the same facts and the same legal elements. The same rule applies to other overlapping charges: where an accused was found guilty of sexual assault and of extortion for threats that induced the complainant to engage in sexual intercourse and fellatio, the sexual assault conviction was stayed.

Extortion charges often arrive alongside uttering threats, criminal harassment, distributing or threatening to distribute an intimate image, assault, robbery, or fraud.

Extortion carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 346 provides a mandatory minimum of five years on a first offence and seven years on a second or subsequent offence where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, or where any firearm is used for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. The four-year minimum that used to apply to extortion with any other firearm was repealed in 2022.

An earlier conviction for extortion; for using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence; or for discharging a firearm with intent or with recklessness. Earlier convictions for criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, or robbery also count, but only if a firearm was used.

An earlier conviction is not counted if 10 years have passed between the two convictions, not counting time in custody. Only the sequence of convictions matters: no consideration is given to the order in which the offences were committed, or whether an offence happened before or after a conviction.

Yes. The mandatory minimum is satisfied as long as the sentence imposed plus the credit for pre-trial custody adds up to at least the minimum. The part of the sentence beyond the pre-trial custody credit begins when it is imposed.

Courts must treat it as aggravating where the extortion took place in a home that was occupied, the accused knew or was reckless about that, and the accused used violence or threats of violence. Since July 18, 2026, the court must also treat a sexual nature or sexual purpose as aggravating. A connection to a criminal organization, a firearm, and the vulnerability of the victim also weigh heavily.

Canada does not use the word felony. Extortion is an indictable offence, the Canadian equivalent of a serious felony: it can only be prosecuted by indictment and carries up to life imprisonment.

Extortion is treated as a serious violent offence at bail. Where violence was allegedly used, threatened, or attempted against any person, or a firearm was allegedly used, the onus is reversed: the accused must show why they should be released, and that their release plan addresses the risks. The court must also consider no-contact and stay-away conditions to protect the complainant and others.

Our lawyers regularly argue bail hearings for extortion charges in Toronto courts. Learn more on our page about Toronto bail hearings.

Young persons charged with extortion, including sextortion between teenagers, are prosecuted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Youth sentences are shorter, but the consequences are still significant. Read more about youth criminal cases.