Peter Robson Hamm

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, the court received written submissions regarding the costs of the forfeiture hearing.

The court awarded the respondent costs of the forfeiture hearing fixed at $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Attorney General appealed the dismissal of an application for civil forfeiture of a residential property under s. 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act.

The property owner's son had used the property for a marijuana grow operation and drug trafficking.

The application judge dismissed the forfeiture, finding an unexplained six-year delay by the Attorney General.

The Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in his findings on delay and by ignoring the lack of a limitation period under s. 8(5).

However, conducting a fresh analysis, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that forfeiture would clearly not be in the interests of justice because the owner was not complicit, did not profit from the crimes, and had made significant efforts to help his son overcome his drug addiction.

The applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen residing in Bangladesh, was charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing foreign public officials in relation to a bridge construction project.

He brought an application to prohibit the Crown from proceeding with the charge, arguing that Canada lacked jurisdiction over him as a foreign national whose alleged acts occurred entirely outside Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while Canada had jurisdiction over the offence itself, the Act did not extend jurisdiction over the person of a foreign national acting abroad unless they were physically present in Canada.

The court granted a stay of proceedings against the applicant.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying or noxious substance to facilitate sexual assault, and being parties to each other’s alleged sexual assault.

The complainant reported memory loss and later flashbacks alleging anal sexual assaults after a night of drinking and attending the accused’s condominium.

The court found significant reliability issues with the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistent recollections, delayed “flashback” memories, and refusal to acknowledge possible memory error.

Forensic and circumstantial evidence did not establish the administration of a drug or non-consensual sexual activity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove lack of consent or the involvement of both accused in the alleged assaults.