R. v. Panipekeesick (A.F.), (2014) 438 Sask.R. 28 (CA)

• Judge: Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: April 21, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 438 Sask.R. 28 (CA);2014 SKCA 50

R. v. Panipekeesick (A.F.) (2014), 438 Sask.R. 28 (CA);

    608 W.A.C. 28

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.019

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Arden Felix Panipekeesick (respondent)

(CACR2302; 2014 SKCA 50)

Indexed As: R. v. Panipekeesick (A.F.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

April 21, 2014.

Summary:

Panipekeesick was acquitted of a charge of attempting to extort money from Ms. Charles, contrary to s. 346(1) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed the acquittal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1750

Offences against property - Extortion - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1754 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1754

Offences against property - Extortion - Evidence - Ms. Charles alleged that she encountered Mr. Panipekeesick and Ms. Toutsaint at a hotel, that she was physically assaulted by Toutsaint in Panipekeesick's presence, and that the two of them demanded money of her - Panipekeesick was acquitted of a charge of attempting to extort money from Charles - The Crown appealed the acquittal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge did not address the elements necessary to establish the offence or properly articulate the law with respect to extortion - He seemed to hold that in order to establish extortion a person had to do some overt act and that mere presence was not enough - An overt act was not required to establish extortion and, depending on the entire context of the incident, mere presence could be sufficient to establish the offence - The trial judge erred in law by failing to consider Panipekeesick's conduct in the context of the situation as a whole.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Barros (R.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368; 421 N.R. 270; 513 A.R. 1; 530 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Anthony Gerein, for the appellant;

Christopher Lavier, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 21, 2014, before Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was rendered orally on April 21, 2014, and the following written reasons were delivered by Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., on April 25, 2014.