Where the accused is convicted of both unlawful confinement (s. 279(2), Code) and sexual assault (s. 271, Code), and the confinement of the complainant forms an integral part of the conviction for sexual assault, a sufficient factual and legal nexus between the two offences exists to trigger the application of the Kienapple principle. 

The conviction on the charge of unlawful confinement is, therefore, to be conditionally stayed.

R. v. Palmer-Coke, 2019 ONCA 106 (obiter);

R. v. Alli, 1996 CanLII 363 (Ont. C.A.): “We are, however, of the opinion that any confinement of the complainant formed an integral part of the convictions for sexual assault or assault simpliciter. By virtue of the principle enunciated c the conviction on the charge of unlawful confinement cannot stand. (See R. v. D. (S.) (1992), 1992 CanLII 7556 (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 402 (Ont. C.A.)).”

See generally R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.

Written by Stuart O’Connell (All rights reserved to author).