The appellant pleaded guilty to marihuana production and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, along with a forfeiture order for his 122-acre farm property.
He appealed the forfeiture order.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by adopting an overly strict test for relief from forfeiture under s. 19.1(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework from R. v. Craig, the Court held that a forfeiture order would have a disproportionate impact given the appellant's minor role, lack of property modifications, and the fact that the property was primarily used as a legitimate farm and residence.
The appeal was allowed and the forfeiture order was set aside.
