Julia A. Evans

The Attorney-General sought forfeiture of insurance proceeds under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 following the killing of the insured by the beneficiary, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court held that the insurance proceeds constituted property acquired as a result of unlawful activity within the meaning of the statute because they became payable as a consequence of the killing.

However, the court concluded that ordering forfeiture would be clearly not in the interests of justice.

Given the absence of moral blameworthiness associated with a finding of not criminally responsible, the lack of deterrent value, and the respondent’s personal circumstances, forfeiture would be manifestly harsh.

The application for forfeiture was therefore dismissed.

The Attorney General sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act in respect of life insurance proceeds payable following the killing of the insured by the beneficiary, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the homicide.

The respondent opposed the order and sought payment of legal fees from the preserved funds and a declaration recognizing counsel’s solicitor’s lien based on a contingency fee agreement.

The court held that a verdict of not criminally responsible constitutes proof that the offence was committed for purposes of the Act, and that the insurance proceeds were sufficiently connected to unlawful activity to justify preservation.

Delay by the Crown in bringing the application did not meet the narrow “clearly not in the interests of justice” exception.

The preservation order was granted, while requests for payment of legal expenses and recognition of a solicitor’s lien were denied or deferred.

The plaintiffs in two class actions moved to quash appeals brought by the defendants from an order declaring that the plaintiffs shared a common interest with the Receiver of YBM, and that the Receiver could produce a report to them without waiving privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not resolve any substantive issue in the proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the order was final simply because it involved a non-party (the Receiver), distinguishing prior case law.

The motions to quash were granted.