Yvan Poulin

The accused pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offences involving a cross-border smuggling operation.

At sentencing, the judge applied s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code over the Crown's objections to consider three uncharged offences related to the operation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 725(1)(c) does not require the Crown's consent.

The Court found that two of the uncharged offences had a real and substantial connection to Canada and were properly considered, but the third occurred entirely in the United States and fell outside Canadian jurisdiction.

The Crown's appeal and the accused's cross-appeal were both dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offences and was sentenced to imprisonment.

The trial judge found the offender had received at least $150,000 from the crimes but had squandered it.

Taking the offender's ability to pay into account, the trial judge imposed a $20,000 fine instead of a forfeiture order under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the fine.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a court's discretion under s. 462.37(3) is limited and does not permit consideration of an offender's ability to pay when deciding whether to impose a fine or determining its amount.

The Court ordered a fine of $150,000.

The appellant was served a notice of ascertained forfeiture under the Customs Act for allegedly attempting to export stolen automobiles using false statements.

He appealed the Minister's decision upholding the forfeiture to the Federal Court.

The Minister sought to examine the appellant for discovery, which the appellant resisted, claiming protection against self-incrimination under section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was not a 'person charged with an offence' because ascertained forfeiture is an administrative, civil collection mechanism, not a penal proceeding, and does not impose true penal consequences.

Therefore, section 11(c) of the Charter did not apply, and the appellant could be compelled to submit to examination for discovery.