Forcible Confinement Charges in Toronto: Criminal Code s. 279(2)

Forcible confinement is set out in section 279(2) of the Criminal Code. A person commits the offence when, without lawful authority, they confine, imprison, or forcibly seize another person. The confinement does not need to involve a locked room or physical bindings. Any deprivation of a person's liberty, for any significant period, can meet the definition if the accused caused it without legal justification.

The Supreme Court of Canada puts it this way: a person is unlawfully confined if, for any significant period of time, they were coercively restrained or directed contrary to their wishes, so that they could not move about according to their own inclination and desire (R v Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59).

Yes. Forcible confinement, unlawful confinement and forced confinement all describe the same offence under section 279(2) of the Criminal Code. The section itself does not use a title: it covers anyone who confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person without lawful authority. “False imprisonment” is the name for a similar wrong in a civil lawsuit, where the remedy is damages rather than a criminal penalty.

Kidnapping under section 279(1) of the Criminal Code requires that the accused move the complainant from one place to another against their will. Forcible confinement under section 279(2) requires only that the complainant's movement be restricted at a single location. The practical difference is asportation: kidnapping carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment because of the movement element, while forcible confinement carries a maximum of ten years on indictment.

Kidnapping also requires a particular intent: to have the person confined or imprisoned against their will, to send or transport them out of Canada, or to hold them for ransom or to service. It carries minimum sentences where a firearm is used, or where the person taken is under 16 and the accused is not their parent or guardian. Hostage-taking (s. 279.1) is confinement with a threat, made to force someone else to do something as the price of release, and also carries up to life.

There is no minimum time requirement in the statute. Courts have convicted accused persons for confinements lasting only a few minutes. What matters is whether the complainant's liberty was meaningfully restricted, not how long the restriction lasted. A brief confinement still qualifies, though the duration becomes relevant later at the sentencing stage.

The restraint must still last for a “significant period of time” (R v Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59). A momentary hold, or a restraint that lasts no longer than another act such as an assault, can leave room to argue there was no separate confinement.

No. Confinement can be achieved through threats, intimidation, or by blocking an exit. If a person reasonably believes they are not free to leave because of something the accused said or did, that is enough. The Crown does not need to prove the accused touched the complainant or used a weapon — only that the complainant was prevented from leaving.

Consent to be in a place can be revoked at any time. Once a complainant makes it clear they want to leave, any conduct by the accused that prevents them from doing so can form the basis of a forcible confinement charge. This often arises during arguments at home, where one person blocks a doorway, takes car keys, or refuses to let the other person out of a vehicle.

Forcible confinement is frequently laid alongside assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, or mischief in domestic disputes. A complainant may describe being held in a bedroom, having a phone taken away, or being prevented from leaving during an argument. These allegations are difficult to defend because they usually come down to the word of the complainant against the word of the accused, without independent witnesses or physical evidence. They can also surface for the first time during separation, divorce, or custody proceedings, where a criminal allegation may influence the family law outcome.

Since 2026, a confinement in which violence was used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner can be charged under section 263.1 of the Criminal Code, with a maximum of 14 years on indictment. Read more about domestic assault charges.

The Crown must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• the accused confined, imprisoned, or forcibly seized the complainant;
• the confinement was without the complainant's consent;
• the accused had no lawful authority to confine the complainant; and
• the accused intended to confine the complainant, or knew the conduct would have that effect.

If the Crown fails on any one of these elements, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. A skilled defence lawyer will look at each element in isolation and identify which one is weakest on the evidence.

Defences depend on the facts of the case. Common defences in forcible confinement cases include:

• The complainant was not actually confined. If the complainant was free to leave at any time, no offence occurred.
• Consent. If the complainant chose to stay and later changed their account, that can undermine the Crown's case.
• Credibility and reliability. Inconsistencies between the complainant's police statement, preliminary inquiry evidence, and trial testimony can create reasonable doubt.
• Identification. If the complainant has misidentified the accused, the charge cannot succeed.
• Lawful authority. Parents restraining a child, private citizens effecting a lawful arrest, and certain caregiving situations can give rise to lawful authority.
• Self-defence or defence of another. In narrow circumstances, restraining another person to prevent harm may be justified.
• Charter challenges. Unlawful arrest, unreasonable search, or improper questioning may lead to the exclusion of key evidence.

Many forcible confinement cases are resolved before trial through careful Crown negotiation, particularly where the allegation is uncorroborated and the complainant's account shifts over time.

The Crown may prosecute forcible confinement by indictment (maximum ten years in prison) or by summary conviction (maximum two years less a day). The sentence imposed depends on the circumstances of the offence, whether a weapon was used, whether the complainant is a vulnerable person, the length of the confinement, and the accused's background.

A conviction can also carry long-term consequences beyond the sentence itself, including:

• a criminal record stored on the national CPIC database;
• a DNA order;
• a firearms prohibition, which is mandatory where the Crown proceeds by indictment and violence was used, threatened or attempted (s. 109);
• difficulty finding or keeping employment, especially in regulated fields;
• problems with immigration, permanent residence, and citizenship applications;
• denial of entry to the United States and other countries;
• restrictions in family law proceedings, including custody and access; and
• the risk of the conviction being reported publicly in the media.

No. Forcible confinement under section 279(2) has no minimum sentence, whether the Crown proceeds by indictment or summarily. Minimum sentences apply to kidnapping and hostage-taking where a firearm is used (four years, or five and seven years with a restricted or prohibited firearm or for a criminal organization), and to kidnapping a person under 16 by someone who is not their parent or guardian (five years). Since July 18, 2026, a court must go below a minimum where it would be cruel and unusual punishment for the particular offender.

Yes. For most forcible confinement charges the Crown must justify detention, and release conditions typically include no contact with the complainant and staying away from their home. The accused has to show why they should be released, by clearly demonstrating that their release plan addresses the risks, in some cases, including where the confinement is alleged against an intimate partner and the accused has a previous intimate partner violence conviction or was on a peace bond for a partner; where a weapon was used and the accused has a similar recent conviction; where the offence was committed while on release for another indictable offence; or where a kidnapping or hostage-taking was committed with a firearm. Read more about bail hearings.