Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On June 24, 2000, the Appellant, a lawyer, attempted to post a $35,000 cash bail for a client who had been arrested and charged with trafficking. The investigating constable was notified that someone was attempting to post bail. He seized $34,980 from the lawyer based on a belief that it was the proceeds of criminal activity. No charges were laid against the Appellant. On September 18, 2000, the Crown applied, under s. 490(2) of the Criminal Code, to extend the statutory maximum three-month detention period. The Appellant filed a notice of motion alleging a s. 8 Charter breach and seeking an order under s. 24(1) to have the cash returned. Stevens-Guille J. of the Provincial Court dismissed the Crown’s motion and allowed the Appellant’s cross-motion. After considering the unlawfulness of the seizure and finding further detention unwarranted, he ordered the money returned. Langston J. of the Court of Queen’s Bench heard appeals from the Crown and the Appellant. He held that there was no appeal from the s. 490(2) finding that further detention was not warranted. He held that Stevens-Guille J. had not committed jurisdictional error in refusing the Crown’s application nor in considering the unlawfulness of the seizure. He held that the Crown’s evidence did not prove that the Appellant’s possession had been unlawful nor did it rebut a presumption that the warrantless search had been unlawful. He upheld the order to return the money and an order respecting costs. The Court of Appeal granted the Crown leave to appeal on the following question of law:

If the Crown moves under s. 490 of the Criminal Code for detention beyond the usual three months of property which was seized or purportedly seized, is it open to the judge hearing that application
(a) to enquire into the legality or propriety of the initial seizure?
(b) or to order the goods returned to the person from whom they were seized because that judge concludes that that initial seizure was improper?

The Court of Appeal also granted the Appellant leave to appeal without prejudice to his right to argue that no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal because no appeal had lain to the Court of Queen’s Bench. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and dismissed the Appellant’s arguments. It vacated the orders of Langston and Stevens-Guille JJ. and ordered a hearing de novo under s. 490(9) to determine whether the money should be returned to the Appellant or forfeited to the Crown.