R. v. Curtis, 2022 NLSC 66

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Curtis , 2022 NLSC 66 Date : April 8, 2022 Docket : 202101G3211 Her Majesty The Queen v. Trevor Rodney Curtis Restriction on Publication: By court order made under subsection 539(1) of the Criminal Code , the evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way until the accused is discharged after the preliminary hearing, or, if the accused is committed to stand trial, until the end of the trial. Before: Justice Katherine O'Brien Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: March 15-17, 2022

Summary:

In this case the accused was found guilty of extortion. The Court found that he had threatened to publish private health information ofthird party patients online with the intention of inducing the health authority to engage with him. The accused believed that the healthauthority had repeatedly violated his rights and he wanted its administration to meet with him to address compensation. The Court foundthat the accused acted without reasonable justification or excuse. Appearances: Jeffrey A. Summers Appearing on behalf of the Crown Michael S.

Ralph Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51; R. v. Natarelli, (SCC), [1967] S.C.R. 539; R. v. Blake (2005), (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); R. v.Davis, (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759; R. v. Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC40; R. v. Morin, (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; R. v. J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45; R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1S.C.R. 742; R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24; R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38; R. v.

Royz, 2008 ONCA 584 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, SNL2015, c A-1.2 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT O'Brien, J: INTRODUCTION [1] Mr. Curtis is charged with one count of extortion pursuant to the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The indictment reads: THAT on or between the 24th day of February, 2020 and the 25th day of February, 2020, at or near St.

John’s, Newfoundland andLabrador, [he] did without reasonable justification or lawful excuse, use threats, accusations, or menaces with intent to induce EasternHealth staff to make contact with him or with intent to obtain compensation, contrary to Section 346(1) of the Criminal Code. [2] Eastern Health is a regional health authority established to deliver health and community services in the eastern region ofNewfoundland and Labrador. [3] The Crown alleges that on February 24, 2020, Mr. Curtis went to the Waterford Hospital in St.

John’s because he wanted todiscuss compensation for Eastern Health’s past treatment of him. Once there, Mr. Curtis spoke to administrative assistant Laura Percey.During their conversation, Mr. Curtis showed Ms. Percy files on a tablet-style device that contained information about Eastern Healthpatients, some of which he had posted previously on Facebook. The Crown alleges that Mr. Curtis threatened Ms. Percey that if he didnot hear from someone at Eastern Health within 24 hours he would release more patient information online. [4] Mr. Curtis admits most of these facts.

However, he denies that he was seeking monetary compensation. Mr. Curtis submitsthat the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted without reasonable justification or excuse. He submits his actionswere justified in light of Eastern Health’s failure to meet with him or address his concerns, particularly after he had posted the patientinformation on Facebook earlier in February. [5] I have found Mr. Curtis guilty of extortion for the reasons that follow. ISSUE [6] I must decide if the Crown has proven all of the elements of extortion beyond a reasonable doubt. LAW Law related to extortion

[7] Section 346(1) of the Criminal Code states: 346

(1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats,accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused ormenaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. [8] Section 346(2) clarifies that a threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section. [9] To establish extortion, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (

i) that the accused has induced or attempted toinduce someone to do something or to cause something to be done; (ii) that the accused has used threats, accusations, menaces orviolence; (iii) that the accused has done so with the intention of obtaining something by the use of threats; and (iv) that either the use ofthe 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 incontext (R. v. Natarelli, (SCC), [1967] S.C.R. 539 at 546, Barros at para. 54 and 56, R. v. Blake (2005), (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 attractingsome gain (Blake at para. 71). Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice (R. v. Davis, (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 actin 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 theconsequences which he or she fears or would prefer to avoid.

The question is: what would a reasonable person in the position of thatperson 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, theonus 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 isnot whether the particular accused believed his or her threats were reasonably justifiable or excusable, but whether a reasonable person inthe accused’s position would have formed that view (Blake at para. 74). Law related to the burden and standard of proof [11] The onus is on the Crown to prove all the elements of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. That onus never shifts(R. v. Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320).

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require absolutecertainty, but it is closer to absolute certainty than it is to the balance of probabilities (R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40). [12] I must consider the evidence as a whole when deciding whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt (R. v.Morin, (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345 at paras. 36-41). Generally, the Crown is not required to prove any particular factbeyond a reasonable doubt except insofar as it is tied in with proof of an element of the offence or disproof of a defence (R. v. J.M.H.,2011 SCC 45 at para 31).

Law related to the evidence of an accused person [13] In R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 the Supreme Court of Canada set out a framework for a trier offact analyzing whether an accused who testifies on their own behalf is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Canadahas since expanded on the framework in cases such as R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 and R. v. Vuradin, 2013SCC 38. The framework can be summarized as follows: a.

Assessing the evidence at a criminal trial does not consist of choosing between an accused’s evidence and the Crown’s evidence.An accused’s evidence cannot be assessed in a vacuum, but rather it must be assessed as part of the evidence as a whole, keeping in mindthat the onus of proof never shifts to the accused. b. A lack of credibility on the part of the accused does not equate to proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. c. If the trier of fact believes exculpatory evidence, from the accused or from another source, then the accused should be acquitted. d.

If the trier of fact does not entirely believe the exculpatory evidence, but is left in reasonable doubt by it, then the accused should beacquitted. e. Even if the trier of fact is not left in reasonable doubt by exculpatory evidence, the trier of fact must acquit the accused unless thetrier of fact is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence the trier of fact does accept, that the accused is guilty. EVIDENCE OF CROWN WITNESSES

[ 14 ] The Crown called four witnesses: Cst. Angela Davidson (investigating police officer), Ms. Percey (administrative assistant), Joseph Sobol (regional director for protection services for Eastern Health) and Dr. Neil Young (physician). I will review their evidence insofar as it is necessary to explain my decision. Cst. Davidson (investigating police officer) [ 15 ] Cst. Davidson is an officer with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (“RNC”). She was assigned to investigate Mr. Sobel’s complaint regarding Mr. Curtis posting Eastern Health patient information on his Facebook account. She visited Mr.

Curtis at his home on February 17, 2020 with another officer. Mr. Curtis confirmed to her that it was his Facebook account. He told her that he had found a USB device containing the patient information in the parking lot of the Health Science Centre around Christmas time the year before. He told her that he had deleted all the files from his computer and given the USB device to another police officer, one Cst. Pye. [ 16 ] Cst. Davidson advised Mr. Curtis that this was a breach of privacy and that the Privacy Commissioner would be following up with him.

She had spoken to someone at the Privacy Commissioner’s officer earlier and confirmed that they had also received a complaint. [ 17 ] Cst. Davidson considered this a privacy matter and did not see grounds for a charge under the Criminal Code . Nevertheless, she investigated further in relation to the USB device but did not confirm that Cst. Pye had received it from Mr. Curtis. [ 18 ] Matters changed when Cst. Davidson became aware of Mr. Curtis’ visit to the Waterford Hospital on February 24, 2020 and an email he sent to Dr. Young the following day. After these events, Cst.

Davidson determined that she had grounds to arrest Mr. Curtis for extortion. Ms. Percey (administrative assistant) [ 19 ] On February 24, 2020, Ms. Percey was working as an administrative assistant at the Waterford Hospital. Her office was near that of Dr. Young. She heard someone banging on a door in the area and went out to find Mr. Curtis outside Mr. Young’s office. She informed Mr. Curtis that Dr. Young was not in and offered her assistance. [ 20 ] Mr. Curtis told her that he wanted to speak to Dr. Young and wanted compensation for his treatment and his experience at the Waterford Hospital.

He told her that he had been a patient at the Waterford and felt he was treated unfairly. He said he had recorded a number of his interactions. [ 21 ] Mr. Curtis asked Ms. Percey if she had heard about a recent privacy breach in the news. She had not. Mr. Curtis told her he had posted patient information on Facebook. Ms. Percey asked him where he got the information, but Mr. Curtis responded that he would never tell Eastern Health where he got it. As he spoke about the patient information, Mr. Curtis showed Ms. Percey a tablet-style reader with files on it. Ms.

Percey recognized file icons but did not read the file names or the documents. [ 22 ] Ms. Percey asked Mr. Curtis if she could have his phone number to give to Dr. Young. Mr. Curtis wanted to communicate by email only and gave her his email address. He said he wanted to speak to Dr. Young or Eastern Health administration to discuss compensation and if he did not hear back within 24 hours, by suppertime the next day, he would be releasing more information online. Mr. Curtis then left of his own accord. [ 23 ] Ms. Percey described Mr. Curtis as emotional and upset during this interaction but not violent.

She did not feel threatened. After he left, Ms. Percey reported the incident to Dr. Young and Mr. Sobel. Mr. Sobol (regional director for protection services for Eastern Health) [ 24 ] A patient whose information Mr. Curtis posted on Facebook complained to Eastern Health. Mr. Sobol investigated the incident and then contacted both the RNC and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and laid complaints against Mr. Curtis. He also had a staff member contact Facebook about removing the post and was involved in Eastern Health seeking an injunction prohibiting further distribution of the material. [ 25 ] Mr.

Sobol confirmed that the information posted on Facebook was from actual Eastern Health patient records. [ 26 ] When Mr. Sobol received information from Ms. Percey about her interaction with Mr. Curtis and from Dr. Young regarding an email Mr. Curtis sent him, Mr. Sobol made a second complaint to the RNC. [ 27 ] Mr. Sobol had no contact with Mr. Curtis and did not ask anyone at Eastern Health to contact Mr. Curtis. Mr. Sobol confirmed that Eastern Health has a system for people to make complaints against Eastern Health employees. He confirmed that he did not provide any information about that system to Mr. Curtis.

Dr. Young (physician) [ 28 ] Dr. Young is a psychiatrist who has an office at the Waterford Hospital. He knew Mr. Curtis prior to February 2020 but had not seen him in person for six to eight years. [ 29 ] Dr. Young recalled getting a call from Ms. Percey after her meeting with Mr. Curtis. He gave her advice as to what to do. [ 30 ] On February 25, 2020, Dr. Young received an email from Mr. Curtis with the subject, “whats going out at 2 pm”. Attached to the email was a letter from an Eastern Health employee to a hotel company.

The author of the letter was expressing his displeasure at the hotel company’s financial support of an organization that supports abortion. [ 31 ] The email starts with “Thought you would like to see a copy of the letter I’m sending to [various recipients, including local media].” Other relevant lines include, “Like I told Neil Young im not stopping until the rights violations I incurred are compensated for”,

“I can prove with ease that they were violated”, “I told everyone ill change the system and how it works and I will”, “I also told Neil Young I will turn it into a class action lawsuit if I have to”. The email ends with “Eastern health can contact me at the above email. Thanks and have a awesome day.” [ 32 ] Dr. Young did not respond to the email. He forwarded it to Mr. Sobol. Dr. Young has not been named in any legal action by Mr. Curtis and is not aware of any legal action by Mr. Curtis. He was not aware of anyone at Eastern Health arranging a meeting with Mr. Curtis following the email. EVIDENCE OF MR.

CURTIS [ 33 ] Mr. Curtis gave a cautioned statement to police that was entered into evidence by consent. He also testified. I will review his evidence insofar as it is necessary to explain my decision. The cautioned statement [ 34 ] During his statement, Mr. Curtis talked frequently about Eastern Health violating his rights. He alleged the violations had happened for twelve years and cost him his cleaning business, which was his livelihood, and his children. He also spoke about protesting and taking legal action against various people to both expose corruption and address wrongs committed against him. [ 35 ] Mr.

Curtis described how he took screenshots of the material he found on the USB device (sometimes referred to as the “memory stick”) and posted them on his Facebook account. He said he only posted people’s names not their information. He also said he posted the letter the Eastern Health employee wrote to the hotel company. [ 36 ] Mr. Curtis said he had been advised by a lawyer not to put the patient information on line. He said the lawyer asked him if he really wanted to ruin someone else’s life, to which Mr. Curtis responded, “why not?

They had no problem ruining mine” (Statement Transcript [1] , page 46). [ 37 ] Mr. Curtis said it was not his fault that “some idiot” lost a USB device with no password on it, and he happened to be the one to pick it up (Statement Transcript, page 47). He said that Cst. Pye had the original USB device from which he took the files. He said he found the USB device at Christmas time and when he looked at it and realized what it was, he thought of it like a “Christmas gift”.

When asked to explain, he said: Well, I mean, after all they put me through with the lies and the corruption and everything else and the rights violations, I was saying to myself, oh wow- like who could ask for anything more? If Eastern Health can destroy me and my reputation, well right – now’s the time to come back on them, right? [2] [ 38 ] Mr. Curtis denied extorting Eastern Health for money. He said he told Neil Young’s administrative assistant (Ms.

Percey) that he wanted a meeting within 24 hours with the “higher ups” at Eastern Health “with regard to [his] case” and to “discuss the rights violation that [he] incurred” (Statement Transcript, pages 84 and 115). He acknowledged showing Ms. Percey the information that he had put on his tablet. He reiterated that he asked Ms. Percey for a meeting with Eastern Health and “gave him till two o’clock the next day” to contact him (Statement Transcript, page 131). He agreed that if he did not get the meeting, he was going to release additional information. [ 39 ] Mr.

Curtis said he no longer had copies of the files as he had erased everything from his computer and Microsoft cloud account after he was served papers to appear in court. He said that he also had the files on his tablet but that he later deleted those as well. [ 40 ] During the interview, Mr. Curtis was advised that the police had a search warrant to search his home for an iPad as they believed that the files had been originally stored on an iPad that was stolen in 2010. Mr. Curtis adamantly denied stealing an iPad. He was cooperative and provided his keys to the police to assist them in carrying out the search.

Evidence of Mr. Curtis at trial [ 41 ] Mr. Curtis’ testimony in court did not vary significantly from his cautioned statement. For example, he described finding the USB and providing it to Cst. Pye. He did not give it to Cst. Pye with the Eastern Health files on it. He had removed the files from the USB device so that he could save a video on the USB device that he wanted the police to have in relation to another investigation. [ 42 ] When asked about his reason for posting the patient information on Facebook, Mr. Curtis said that it was his “one shot” to be able to get someone’s attention.

Under cross-examination, he acknowledged that he posted more than just names of people who were identified as “patients”. He acknowledged that he had posted the MCP number, medications and treatment details for one person. He acknowledged that he did not have anyone’s consent. [ 43 ] Mr. Curtis described the files as his “leverage” and described again how he had explained to Ms. Percy that he was going to post more files if he was not contacted by Eastern Health “higher ups" by 2 p.m. the following day. He described posting screen shots on Facebook the following day at 2 p.m. [ 44 ] Mr.

Curtis considered that he was not breaking the law by posting the information because he had simply found the USB device. [ 45 ] Mr. Curtis denied that he was seeking “compensation” from Eastern Health. When it was put to him that Ms. Percey had testified that he had used the word “compensation” and that he used it in his email of February 25, Mr. Curtis suggested that compensation does not have to be money. He said it could be getting a person removed from their job because of incompetence. When it was put to him that a lawsuit was to get money, Mr.

Curtis asked if a class action lawsuit could be to have people removed for positions for power. He said he never asked for money.

[ 46 ] Mr. Curtis acknowledged that he had never taken legal action against Eastern Health. He said he had contacted law firms but had not been able to pay the required retainer. [ 47 ] Mr. Curtis denied that Cst. Davidson had visited his home prior to his visit to the Waterford Hospital. ANALYSIS Findings of fact [ 48 ] The parties agree upon most of the relevant facts. This is not surprising given that the witnesses’ testimony was generally consistent. The Facebook posts and Mr.

Curtis’ February 25, 2020 email also corroborated aspects of the testimony. [ 49 ] I found all of the witnesses to be credible, meaning that I found they gave their evidence honestly and to the best of their recollection. There were some discrepancies in the evidence, which I will address. [ 50 ] When Mr. Curtis initially testified that he had only posted people’s names on Facebook, I find he was mistaken.

When the Facebook posts were shown to him on cross-examination, he readily accepted that he had posted personal health information in addition to names. [ 51 ] Similarly, I find he was mistaken when he testified that he posted the information on Facebook the day after his visit to the Waterford Hospital. In summation, Mr. Curtis’ lawyer acknowledged that he was in error on this point. The rest of the evidence clearly established that the Facebook posts were made earlier in February. Defence counsel agreed that Mr. Curtis sent the email to Dr. Young the day after his visit with Ms. Percey. I find that Mr.

Curtis confused the timing of his Facebook posts but I do not find that this error negatively affected his credibility. Witnesses can give testimony they believe to be true but that is not reliable, in the sense that it is not accurate. Over time, memories fade and details can become confused. [ 52 ] To the extent that Mr. Curtis’ evidence differed from that of Cst. Davidson about whether she visited him as part of her investigation of the Facebook posts, I preferred the testimony of Cst. Davidson. She took contemporaneous notes of their meeting and had those to refresh her memory. In addition, Mr.

Curtis’ recollection would not explain how Cst. Davidson knew when she did that Mr. Curtis said he had given the USB device to Cst. Pye. Again, I do not find that Mr. Curtis was being dishonest in his recollection, but I find that he was mistaken. [ 53 ] Although it is not directly relevant to the charges against him, I believe Mr. Curtis found the USB device as he described. His evidence about this event was detailed and consistent. Although it may well be that an iPad was stolen in 2010 from an Eastern Health employee, I heard no direct evidence on that point and make no finding.

There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Curtis ever had an iPad. [ 54 ] Assessing Mr. Curtis’ testimony and actions as a whole, I find that Mr. Curtis had a long-standing grievance against Eastern Health. He believed that people who worked with Eastern Health had violated his rights repeatedly, causing him to lose his business and financial security and damaging his relationship with his children. I also find that Mr. Curtis believed that he should receive redress from Eastern Health for these apparent wrongs. [ 55 ] I find that when Mr. Curtis found the USB device, he decided to use it for his advantage.

This is clear from Mr. Curtis’ own evidence, including his referring to the information as a “Christmas gift” and as “leverage”. He initially posted portions of the patient information on his Facebook account hoping that would lead to his getting what he wanted from Eastern Health. When that did not work, he decided to take the further step of visiting Dr. Young’s office. These findings are consistent with Mr. Curtis’ testimony. [ 56 ] In his discussion with Ms. Percey, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.

Curtis threatened to release further private health information of Eastern Health patients with the intention of inducing the administration of Eastern Health to meet with him and compensate him for the wrongs he perceived against him. Mr. Curtis’ threat was clear and unequivocal and I have no hesitation finding that Mr. Curtis successfully conveyed to Ms. Percey what he wanted and the consequences if he did not get it. [ 57 ] These findings are consistent with the testimony of both Mr. Curtis and Ms. Percey. The only significant difference between their recollections is whether Mr.

Curtis used the word “compensation”. On this point, I prefer the evidence of Ms. Percey, who testified that she heard him use that word. I note that Mr. Curtis used the same word in his email the next day. During his testimony, Mr. Curtis stressed more than once that he did not ask for money. When Ms. Percey’s recollection of the word “compensation” was put to him directly, he suggested that compensation could mean something other than money. Regardless of what he meant by the word, I am satisfied that he used it. [ 58 ] Considering his actions in their entirety, I am satisfied that Mr.

Curtis believed that if he released the information it would be an embarrassing and difficult situation for Eastern Health administration and he felt that their desire to avoid this embarrassment and difficulty would induce them to act in the way he wanted. [ 59 ] Although his email to Dr. Young the following day did not make an explicit threat, when viewed in context with all of Mr. Curtis’ actions, I find that Mr. Curtis hoped to further influence Eastern Health’s actions by making public an employee’s letter that he believed Eastern Health would find embarrassing.

Assessment of the elements of the offence [ 60 ] Based on these findings of fact, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Curtis used a threat with the intention of inducing Eastern Health to give him something he wanted. As I have found that Mr. Curtis’ threat was not to institute civil proceedings but instead was to publish further private health information of Eastern Health patients, section 346(2) of the Criminal Code does not apply. [ 61 ] In assessing his actions, it does not matter exactly what Mr. Curtis meant by “compensation”. I accept that it could have been

compensation by means other than money. Extortion does not have to be for money. The Crown need only prove that Mr. Curtis threatened with the intent to obtain “anything”, which is given a broad and unrestricted meaning . It does not matter whether he wanted to be given money or to get people removed from their jobs. The key point is that there was something that Mr. Curtis wanted and he used threats to try to get it. [ 62 ] Nor does it matter whether it was legal for Mr. Curtis to post the patient information online. The threat does not have to be to do something illegal. Mr.

Curtis believes he was legally entitled to publish the personal health information of the patients. The Crown submits that such disclosure was an offence under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act , 2015, SNL 2015, c A-1.2 , although Mr. Curtis was not charged with an offence under that Act . I will not make any finding with respect to the legality of his posting the information. Extortion can be proved in cases where the offender threatened to do something he or she was legally entitled to do (see e.g. Blake and R. v. Royz , 2008 ONCA 584 ).

At issue is not the legality of the conduct threatened, but whether the threat was made with the intention of overcoming the target’s free will. Threatening someone to expose something embarrassing or private can be an effective method of coercing someone’s behavior. [ 63 ] This case turns on whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Curtis acted without reasonable justification or excuse. The question is not simply whether Mr. Curtis felt he was acting reasonably or that he was justified. I accept that Mr. Curtis believed he was justified.

However, I must consider how a reasonable person in Mr. Curtis’ position would have viewed the situation. This is what distinguishes criminal extortion from non-criminal threats and demands. For example, a reasonable person would not find a parent to be unjustified in threatening to take their teenager’s cellphone unless the child respected a curfew or helped with household chores. Likewise, a reasonable person would not find criminal behavior in an employee threatening to find another job unless they were given a raise. Such demands with consequences attached are a part of everyday life. [ 64 ] In assessing Mr.

Curtis’ situation in its full context, I am satisfied that a reasonable person would not find his actions justified or excused. There are a number of factors that lead me to this finding. [ 65 ] First, I consider the fact that Mr. Curtis was threating to expose private health information of third parties to be an important factor. A reasonable person views personal health information as private, even deeply so. Regardless of the legality of his posting such information publically, Mr. Curtis had no business having that information.

A person finding such information would reasonably be expected to either destroy it or turn it over to Eastern Health, not seek to use it for their personal advantage. [ 66 ] Second, I consider it relevant that there was no rational connection between Mr. Curtis’ threat and what he sought to obtain. Mr. Curtis’ demands for a meeting and compensation are in no way related to the third party patients, their private information, or the circumstances under which Mr. Curtis found the USB device.

A reasonable person would be more likely to find justification or excuse if there was some rational connection between the threat and the demand. For example, if Mr. Curtis was threatening to take his story to the media or to picket Eastern Health in protest if he did not get a meeting. [ 67 ] Additionally, a reasonable person would likely consider how Mr. Curtis intended to influence Eastern Health, that is, by creating an embarrassing and difficult situation for them by exposing a data leak.

Even if legal, a threat that is, in effect, to cause someone embarrassment or to expose something private is less likely to be considered reasonable than another type of threat. [ 68 ] Mr. Curtis’ lawyer submits that Eastern Health could have diffused the situation if they had contacted Mr. Curtis directly after the Facebook posts and engaged with him. He reasons that had Eastern Health done that, Mr. Curtis would not have felt the need to escalate matters by visiting Dr. Young’s office and threatening to release more information.

This may be true, however, I do not find that a reasonable person would consider that Eastern Health’s response to the Facebook posts justified or excused Mr. Curtis’ behavior. Mr. Curtis should not have posted the information in the first place. The fact that such behavior did not get the response he wanted, cannot be reasonably viewed as justifying him upping the ante by threatening to post more. [ 69 ] Although none of the above factors are determinative of the reasonableness of Mr. Curtis’ actions, it is the combination of them, in the full context of Mr.

Curtis’ situation, which leads me to find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted without reasonable justification or excuse . [ 70 ] I have considered Mr. Curtis’ testimony and his cautioned statement in the context of all of the evidence. Although I generally found him credible and accepted most of his evidence, this is not a case where believing the accused raises a reasonable doubt. Most of Mr. Curtis’ testimony was not exculpatory. To the extent that some of his evidence can be considered exculpatory, it did not leave me with any reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven all of the elements of extortion beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that I accept. DISPOSITION [ 71 ] For these reasons, I find Trevor Rodney Curtis guilty of extortion contrary to section 346(1) of the Criminal Code . _____________________________ Katherine O'Brien Justice