Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Restitution — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that it was appropriate and just within meaning of s. 24(1) of Charter to deny restitution of lawful property seized illegally from its legitimate owner on basis of its anticipated usefulness to state in any other parallel administrative, civil, tax or criminal proceeding that was under way or imminent, when trial court had determined that violations of applicants’ constitutional rights were intentional and were committed by experienced public servants who were aware of limits of legislation and whose conduct was characterized as highly reprehensible by Court of Québec and by Court of Appeal — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(1).

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.

In 2015, in the course of a trial on penal charges, a judge excluded evidence on the ground that tax audit powers had been used to advance a criminal investigation, which was a violation of the rights enshrined in ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. The applicants were acquitted in those cases because of a lack of residual evidence. The applicants applied again to the Court of Québec, asking it to exercise its jurisdiction so that the applicants could recover the things seized as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. They argued that retention of the property perpetuated the violation.

The Court of Québec held that returning the property is generally the appropriate remedy except where there is a compelling public policy reason. Because the illegally seized property was of use to the prosecution in other judicial or administrative proceedings, the judge was of the view that it was in the interests of justice to leave it to each judge hearing each proceeding to rule on its admissibility. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal of Quebec affirmed the trial judge’s decision.