Many people picture a basement and a locked door when they hear the words “forcible confinement.” The charges that actually come before the courts can look far more ordinary. An argument in a Brampton apartment where one partner stands in front of the door for twenty minutes. A car that keeps moving after a passenger demands to be let out. A store employee who takes someone to a back office and refuses to let them leave. Each of these could, depending on the evidence, lead to a charge under section 279(2) of the Criminal Code.
Because the label sounds so severe, an accused person and their family can panic before they understand what is alleged. The opposite reaction also happens: someone assumes the charge can’t stick because nobody was tied up and the whole thing was over quickly. Neither assumption is safe. The outcome tends to depend on what happened minute by minute, what the person being held wanted, and whether anyone had a legal right to act as they did.
Please treat this article as general information and not as legal advice about your case. A lawyer who has read the disclosure can give you an opinion that fits the actual facts.
The Wording of the Offence
Section 279(2) is short. It applies to anyone who, without lawful authority, “confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes” another person. It’s a hybrid offence, so the Crown can proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. On indictment, the maximum is 10 years in prison. On summary conviction, the general maximum is two years less a day and a $5,000 fine, or both.
There is no mandatory minimum sentence in that subsection. That matters later, because it leaves the door open to options like a conditional sentence or, in the right case, a discharge. Availability is not the same as likelihood, and a court will look closely at how frightening and how dangerous the incident was.
Confinement should not be confused with kidnapping, which appears in the same section. Kidnapping under section 279(1) involves taking someone with an added intent, such as holding them for ransom or moving them out of Canada against their will, and it’s a far more serious, indictable-only offence with a possible life sentence. Prosecutors sometimes lay both on the same facts. Hostage-taking, in section 279.1, is different again, since it involves using the person as leverage to make someone else do something.
How Much Restraint Is Enough?
The key question is usually whether the person’s freedom of movement was actually taken away. In R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, a murder case that turned partly on the meaning of unlawful confinement, the Supreme Court of Canada described it as a situation where, for any significant period of time, the person was coercively restrained or directed contrary to their wishes, so that they could not move about according to their own inclination and desire.
Several practical points flow from that description:
- Physical force isn’t required. Threats, intimidation, or a show of force can be enough if they keep someone in place. A person who stays because they are afraid of what will happen if they try to leave may be confined, even with an unlocked door right beside them.
- Time matters, but there’s no stopwatch. The law doesn’t set a number of minutes. A very brief grab in the middle of a scuffle may not amount to a separate confinement. A shorter period can still count if the circumstances were frightening enough and the restraint was real.
- A location isn’t essential. A vehicle, an elevator, a stairwell, or a hallway can all work. Being forced to go somewhere can be just as relevant as being kept somewhere.
- The confinement must be more than incidental. When someone is held down briefly during an assault, the defence may argue that the restraint was simply part of the assault and shouldn’t also be a stand-alone offence. Whether that succeeds will depend on the facts.
Consider a hypothetical. Two people are arguing in a parked car near a Brampton plaza. One says, “I want to get out.” The driver hits the lock button, says “Not until we finish this,” and pulls onto the road, driving for fifteen minutes. A complainant who describes that sequence gives the Crown something to work with, and a dashcam, a text sent during the drive, or a phone call to a friend could strengthen it. Compare that with a car ride where the same person calmly stayed in the vehicle, chatted, and asked to be dropped off at home. These are very different cases, although a police report could describe both in similar language.
Where Lawful Authority Comes In
The words “without lawful authority” do real work in this offence. Some people do have legal power to hold another person, at least for a time, and their cases often turn on whether they stayed inside that power.
Citizen’s arrests and store security. Under section 494, anyone may arrest a person they find committing an indictable offence. An owner or person in lawful possession of property, or someone they authorize, may also arrest a person they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. That can include loss-prevention staff at a shopping centre, a business owner, or a homeowner. But the person making the arrest must deliver the arrested person to police right away. Taking someone to a back room to interrogate them, photograph them, or pressure them into paying is much harder to defend. Being mistaken about whether an offence was happening at all also creates serious risk. A small business owner who believes an employee has been stealing should call the police, and shouldn’t try to hold a meeting behind a locked door until the employee confesses.
Parents and caregivers. Parents can set limits for their children, and an ordinary grounding is not a crime. A situation can move into criminal territory if a child or teenager is locked in a room for long periods, restrained, or kept from leaving in a way that goes far beyond reasonable care or safety. Children’s aid involvement may follow as well. A parent taking a child in breach of a parenting order raises separate abduction offences under sections 280 to 283, and those deserve urgent advice of their own.
Workplaces and landlords. No employer has authority to keep a worker from leaving, even over a dispute about missing cash, a passport, or a debt. The same applies to a landlord or a creditor. Withholding someone’s identity documents and pressuring them to stay can raise other issues as well, including potential human trafficking allegations in serious cases.
Health and safety situations. Keeping an intoxicated friend from driving, or physically preventing someone from walking into traffic, is a different kind of situation. Whether those facts provide a defence is highly specific, and a lawyer should review them. The law looks at reasonableness and necessity, rather than good intentions alone.
When It Arises in a Relationship
Many of these charges come out of intimate partner disputes. An allegation might include taking away someone’s phone or keys, standing in a doorway, or refusing to let the other person leave the home until an argument is over. The phone detail is important because it often appears alongside an assault, threatening, or mischief charge.
If the allegation involves an intimate partner, the court must treat that as an aggravating factor when sentencing. Evidence from family members, neighbours, and building cameras may become central. And because the two people may share children, a home, or a business, the criminal case can collide with everyday life. Release conditions may prohibit contact and may bar the accused from the family home. A family court may need to deal with parenting arrangements while those conditions are in place, and anything said in one proceeding can sometimes be used in the other.
If you have been charged and you need to sort out contact with your children, don’t contact the complainant to work it out yourself, even in a friendly way. A lawyer can seek a variation of the conditions or use a proper third party to arrange things. A breach would create a further charge and put your release at risk.
Bail and the First Days of the Case
Police may release someone with an undertaking or hold them for a bail hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice at 7755 Hurontario Street. A confinement allegation carries a sense of danger, so the Crown is likely to focus on the safety of the complainant and on whether conditions can manage any risk.
For some accused people, the burden is reversed. Section 515(6) requires the accused to show why they should be released in several situations. Examples include being charged while already on release for another indictable offence, or having a prior conviction or discharge for violence against an intimate partner in the circumstances the Code describes. Where the accused has to justify release, they must clearly demonstrate that the proposed release plan addresses the risks. In practice, that means a plan with specifics, such as where you will live, who will supervise you if a surety is needed, and how contact with the complainant will be avoided.
Common conditions include no contact with the complainant, staying away from certain addresses, and a weapons prohibition. Read them word by word. If a condition would prevent you from working your shift in Mississauga or picking up your child at school, raise that before you agree to it, or ask your lawyer about changing it afterward.
Evidence and Possible Defences
Confinement cases often begin with one person’s account, but they rarely end there. Depending on the location, the Crown may collect 911 audio, body-worn camera footage, surveillance video from a plaza or condo lobby, phone records, and text messages. On the defence side, the same material can help or hurt. The timing of a message sent “during” the alleged confinement can show either fear or freedom, depending on what it says.
Issues your lawyer may explore include:
- whether the complainant was actually prevented from leaving, or stayed by choice
- whether there was consent at the outset, and whether it was clearly withdrawn
- how long the event lasted and whether the account of that time holds up
- whether the conduct was truly separate from any other alleged offence
- whether there was lawful authority, such as a valid arrest
- whether the accused acted to protect themselves or someone else, which may raise the defence in section 34
- whether police respected the accused’s rights during arrest, search, and questioning
Credibility often sits at the heart of the matter. A court must decide if the Crown has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it doesn’t simply choose which story it prefers. An accused person doesn’t have to prove what happened. Still, inconsistent statements, deleted messages, or contact with witnesses can do serious damage, so preserve everything and keep your distance.
Sentencing and Longer-Term Effects
Sentencing depends on how long the restraint lasted, whether there was violence, whether a weapon or threats were involved, how vulnerable the person was, and the accused’s background. A lengthy or terrifying confinement can bring a significant jail term. A brief incident with a first-time offender, a strong plan for counselling, and real support in the community might lead to a very different outcome. Nobody can promise a particular result. If the charge is resolved with a plea to a lesser offence, the wording of what you admit can matter.
The longer-term consequences reach well beyond the sentence. For a non-citizen, a 10-year maximum may put this charge into the category of serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whichever way the Crown proceeds. Before any plea, a permanent resident or a person on a work or study permit should get advice that considers both criminal and immigration law. A conviction can also complicate vulnerable sector checks, professional licences, and travel, particularly to the United States.
If You Have Just Been Charged or Contacted
Some sensible first steps are straightforward. Don’t discuss the facts with police without first getting legal advice. Save texts, call logs, photos, and location history, and don’t delete anything, no matter how embarrassing. Write down your own timeline for your lawyer, marked as prepared for that purpose. Make a list of anybody who saw you before or after the incident and any place with cameras, since footage may be overwritten quickly. Follow every release condition exactly.
A confinement allegation is usually a dispute about minutes, movement, and fear, and small facts can change its legal character. Sawan Law House LLP’s criminal law page describes the kinds of charges the firm handles, and you can contact the office if you’d like to talk through your next step. If an assault is also alleged, it’s worth reading about how assault charges work too, since these allegations frequently appear together.