2 total
A stay of criminal proceedings does not preclude the Crown from seeking forfeiture of seized property.
The respondents were charged with offences relating to cannabis production, and their property was seized.
The charges were stayed due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The Crown subsequently applied for forfeiture of the seized property.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Court of Québec lacked jurisdiction under provisions tied to trial and sentencing (ss. 462.37 and 491.1 Cr.
C. and s. 16 CDSA), it retained jurisdiction under the residual disposition provision (s. 490(9) Cr.
C.).
The stay of proceedings did not preclude the Crown from seeking forfeiture, as forfeiture proceedings are distinct from criminal liability proceedings and do not engage double jeopardy.
Stay of proceedings set aside; defence-caused delays precluded s. 11(b) Charter remedy.
The Crown appealed a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that quashed four convictions and entered a stay of proceedings based on a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The trial judge had found a s. 11(b) infringement but declined to stay proceedings on the basis that the accused had not been prejudiced by the delay.
The Court of Appeal erred by entering a stay without re-examining the reasonableness of the delays, even though the record contained a detailed statement of admissions.
The Supreme Court held that a functional analysis of the trial judge's reasons showed he considered the relevant Morin factors and reached the correct conclusion.
The defence-caused delays, including multiple unsuccessful applications and insistence on conflicted counsel, must be subtracted, and the transitional exceptional circumstance under Jordan further supported the conclusion that s. 11(b) was not infringed.
