In this case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered what form an order of forfeiture should take in the forfeiture provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended. The court held that an order of forfeiture should take the form of “property” rather than a “financial interest” in property, and accordingly allowed the appeal in part.
Both respondents were convicted of charges relating to marijuana offences. At the sentencing hearings, the trial judges ordered a forfeiture of a financial interest in their residential properties. The Court of Appeal set aside the form of the trial judges’ forfeiture orders, although the court affirmed the scope of the orders. The court relied on contrasting terminology in ss.19 and 19.1 and s.20: the former two employ “property” whereas s.20 refers to an “interest.” Additionally, orders in the form of financial interests would tend to blur the distinction between the sentencing process and the forfeiture process, a distinction that the Supreme Court stated was necessary to maintain in R. v. Craig, 2009 SCC 23. Finally, the court rejected the financial interest form because this process would unduly prolong the criminal process.
November 24, 2011
Link to Decision
Fidelia Ho
*
No comments:
Post a Comment