His Majesty the King v. Voss et al., 2026 ONSC 1414

CITATION: R v Voss et al, 2026 ONSC 1414

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-0043-00, CR-23-0024-00

DATE: 2026-03-09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: R v. Voss et al

HEARD: March 6, 2026

BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice D. Newton

PRESENT VIA ZOOM:

J. Heller and J. Corelli for the Crown

J. Rosenthal for Robert Murphy

C. Rosemond for Brent Merrill

D. Spies and M. Eley – (unrepresented) for Thunder Bay Art Gallery

J. Gratl for the Estate of Norval Morrisseau (proposed intervenor)

U. Matulic - (unrepresented)

R. Sinclair – (unrepresented)

M. Cortelucci – (unrepresented)

E N D O R S E M E N T

1This is an application by the Crown to hold joint Forfeiture Applications in the following proceedings:

R. v. Voss and R. v. Lamont (CR-23-0043-00); and

R. v. Cowan, R. v. White, and R. v. Bremmer (CR-23-0024-00).

2By endorsement dated February 4, 2026, I directed that the Crown’s Application material be delivered by February 20, 2026. The Crown has served all third parties. I also directed that anyone opposing the Application should deliver responding material by February 27, 2026.

3No responding material has been received. Mr. Heller advises that Mr. Rosenthal, counsel for R. Murphy, and Mr. Sommer, counsel for himself, K. Hearn and Whetung Ojibwa Centre, have advised the Crown that their clients do not take any position on the Application. Mr. Rosemund, on behalf of B. Merrill, advised that his client take no position on the application.

4No other party present opposes the Application for a joint forfeiture hearing.

5Mr. Heller gave an update with respect to the Cowan sentencing as that sentencing decision has the potential to delay the proposed dates for the Forfeiture Hearings. Sentencing submission are to be completed by June 30, 2026. The proposed date for the commencement of the Forfeiture application is November 16, 2026.

6Over 1000 artworks which the Crown alleges are “fakes” were seized in these prosecutions from fifteen third parties. The Crown asserts that these two Forfeiture Applications involve common third parties, evidence, and identical legal issues and that proceeding by way of a joint hearing will use the court’s resources most efficiently and ensure a consistent application of the law. A common hearing will minimize court proceedings and costs for those who are involved in both prosecutions.

7The Crown submits that this Court has jurisdiction to issue an order for a joint hearing based on its inherent jurisdiction to “regulate its proceedings in a way that secures convenience, expeditiousness and efficacy in the administration of justice”.¹

8The Crown further submits that the issue of forfeiture is distinct from sentencing and is focused on property and not the offender and that there is, therefore, no requirement to have both sentencing and forfeiture dealt with in the same hearing.

9I agree with the legal principles as stated by the Crown. I further agree that, given there are common third parties, evidence, and legal issues, the most efficient process for all parties is to order that the two Forfeiture Hearings be heard jointly. The draft Order at Case Centre B5398-9 is to issue and be placed in both electronic Court Files.

10The next stage in these proceedings is the application for leave to intervene by the Morriseau Estate to be heard May 25-26, 2026, followed by a case management conference on June 26, 2020, with the Forfeiture Hearing to commence November 16, 2026.

The Honourable Justice D. Newton R.S.J.

Footnotes

1. 1Endean v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 42, at paras. 60-62.