R. v. Voss et al. and R v. Cowan et al., 2026 ONSC 3135

CITATION: R. v. Voss et al. and R v. Cowan et al., 2026 ONSC 3135

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

DATE: 2026-05-28

ONTAIRO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAGESTY THE KING

and

DAVID VOSS and GARY LAMONT

and

JAMES WHITE, DAVID PAUL BREMNER and JEFFERY COWAN

HEARD: May 25, 2026,

at Thunder Bay, Ontario

J. Heller and J. Corelli for the Crown

J. Gratl and T. Rauch-Davis for the Estate of Norval Morrisseau, proposed intervenor

C. Rosemond – counsel to Brent Merrill

R. Leblanc (unrepresented)

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

U. Matulic – (unrepresented)

R. Sinclair – (unrepresented)

J. Rosenthal – counsel to R. Murphy not appearing, R. Murphy appearing

A. Azzolini – (unrepresented)

J. Sommer for self, K. Hearn, and Whetung Ojibawa Centre, not appearing

A. M. Heisey – counsel to M. Cortelucci, not appearing

C. Ralphs – (unrepresented), not appearing

Regional Senior Justice W. D. Newton

REASONS ON APPLICATION FOR STANDING / INTERVENTION

Overview

1By endorsement dated March 9, 2026, I granted a Crown application to have the Forfeiture Applications in R. v. Voss et al. and R. v. Lamont (CR_23-0043-00); and R. v. Cowan, R. v. White, and R. v. Bremmer (CR_23-0024-00), heard together.¹

2The Forfeiture Applications concern paintings and other art objects at times attributed or represented as being created by the deceased Anishinaabe artist, Norval Morrisseau.

3Either as a result of guilty pleas, or findings after trial, convictions have been entered against several individuals for forgery or uttering forged documents.

4The Crown has brought three applications for the:

a. Return of 117 paintings or objects of art to five parties relating to objects seized in the Voss and Lamont investigations;²

b. Forfeiture of 464 paintings or objects of art seized from fifteen parties in the Voss and Lamont investigations; and

c. Forfeiture of 765 paintings or objects of art seized from three parties in the Cowan, White, and Bremmer investigations.³

5The Estate of Norval Morrisseau (the “Estate”) has brought applications for orders:

a. Granting the Estate standing as a party, or, alternatively, granting the Estate leave to intervene, in these Crown applications; and

b. Granting the Estate leave to file expert opinion evidence dealing with the adverse effects of the continued existence of forgeries.

6For the reasons that follow, I find that the Estate “appears to have a valid interest in the property” and will be heard as set out herein, and may file expert opinion evidence.

The Facts

7The Estate filed affidavits from Gabe Vadas, the executor and one of the beneficiaries of the Estate, from Erica Claus, the proposed expert, and a Book of Authorities.

8The Crown filed written submissions and a Book of Authorities in partial support of the Estate’s position.

9Originally, Mr. Sommer filed material on his behalf and on behalf of the Whetung Ojibwa Centre and has since requested that this material be withdrawn. This material has not been considered on the Estate’s applications.

10No other party filed any written submissions or made submissions responding to the Estate’s applications.

11In addition to executor of the Estate, Mr. Vadas is a beneficiary to one half of the Estate. The beneficiaries to the other one half of the Estate are Mr. Morrisseau’s seven children. The property of the Estate consists of the copyright,⁴ trademarks,⁵ and moral rights⁶ in the works of Norval Morrisseau and “hundreds of original and authentic works of Norval Morrisseau”.

12Erica Claus deposes that she has significant experience and training in fine art appraisal and, in particular, extensive professional experience with the works of Norval Morrisseau which she describes as her “signature area of expertise”. That experience includes the appraisal of over 160 of his artworks and artifacts. In her affidavit, she provides opinions addressing the following questions:

a. What harms, if any, are likely to result to the economic value of authentic Morrisseau paintings if known Morrisseau forgeries are not destroyed?

b. What harms, if any, are likely to result to the market or exchange of authentic Morrisseau paintings if known Morrisseau forgeries are not destroyed?

c. What harms, if any are likely to result to the artistic legacy of Norval Morrisseau if known Morrisseau forgeries are not destroyed?

The Legislative Framework

The Criminal Code⁷ provides:

Order of forfeiture of property on conviction

490.1 (1) Subject to sections 490.3 to 490.41, if a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of an indictable offence under this Act or the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and, on application of the Attorney General, the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that offence-related property is related to the commission of the offence, the court shall

(a) if the prosecution of the offence was commenced at the instance of the government of a province and conducted by or on behalf of that government, order that the property be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of that province to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the law by the Attorney General or Solicitor General of that province; and

(b) in any other case, order that the property be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the law by the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that is designated by the Governor in Council for the purpose of this paragraph.

Notice

490.4 (1) Before making an order under subsection 490.1(1) or 490.2(2) in relation to any property, a court shall require notice in accordance with subsection (2) to be given to, and may hear, any person who, in the opinion of the court, appears to have a valid interest in the property. [Emphasis added.]

Positions of the Parties

The Estate

13The Estate submits that it has a valid interest in the seized property by way of intellectual property rights, including copyright, trademark and moral rights and, therefore, seeks an order granting the Estate standing as a party with a valid interest in the property.

14Alternatively, the Estate seeks an order granting the Estate standing as an intervenor.

15The Estate submits that it should be granted intervenor status as it:

a. has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;

b. has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties;

c. has special expertise, which includes consideration of whether the applicant seeks to file any expert evidence;

d. is likely to make a useful contribution without causing an injustice to the immediate parties; and,

e. submissions are not likely to be duplicative of the submission of others.⁸

16With respect to leave to file expert evidence, the Estate submits that the proposed evidence is probative of the harm arising from any preservation of the forgeries specific to the Morrisseau Estate and the artistic legacy of Norval Morrisseau.

The Crown

The Crown:

a. takes no position on whether the Estate should be granted standing as a party;

b. does not oppose the Estate being granted intervenor status, subject to defined limits on the scope of participation; and

c. accepts, subject to a voir dire,⁹ the admissibility of the proposed expert evidence of Erica Claus.

17Following R. v. Toronto Humane Society,¹⁰ the Crown accepts that the recognized criteria for intervention are engaged as the Estate:

a. has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings;

b. has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties;

c. is capable of making a useful contribution; and

d. will lead evidence and make submissions that are unlikely to duplicate those of other participants or cause injustice to the parties.

18The Crown submits that the Estate’s participation should be confined to:

a. leading evidence addressing the adverse effects of the continued existence of forged artworks falsely attributed to Norval Morrisseau; and

b. making oral and written submissions that are directed to, and grounded in, the evidentiary record before the Court.

19The Estate accepts these limits on participation.

20The Crown further accepts that, subject to qualification, Ms. Claus may give expert opinion evidence regarding the harms caused by the continued existence of forged Morrisseau works to:

a. Norval Morrisseau’s artistic legacy;

b. the market value of authentic Morrisseau works; and

c. the functioning of the legitimate market for the free exchange of authentic Norval Morrisseau works.

Analysis and Disposition

21The test for notice under s. 490.4(1) is a low threshold. I am satisfied that the Estate appears to have a valid, although indirect, interest in the property for the reasons given by the Estate and, as such, is entitled to notice. I describe the interest as indirect because the Estate does not have a direct interest in any of the objects like the parties from whom the objects were seized.

22A court “may hear” any person entitled to notice. The court retains discretion to determine whether a person with an interest in the property will be heard and on what issues.

23Having found that the Estate appears to have a valid interest in the property, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Estate’s participation is as a party with standing or as an intervenor. However, I agree that the Estate meets the criteria for leave to intervene.

24What the court “may hear” has been addressed by the submissions of the Estate and the Crown.

25I conclude that, as agreed by the Estate and the Crown, the Estate’s participation shall be confined to:

a. leading evidence addressing the adverse effects of the continued existence of forged artworks falsely attributed to Norval Morrisseau; and

b. making oral and written submissions that are directed to, and grounded in, the evidentiary record before the Court.

26The evidence to be lead addressing the adverse effects of the continued existence of forged artworks will consist of the affidavit from Ms. Claus.

27The “may hear” discretion will allow me to address any further issues that may arise during the Crown’s applications.

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

Footnotes

1. 1R. v. Voss et al., 2026 ONSC 1414.
2. 2The position of the Crown, at present, is that these objects are of “unknown origin” and there is no basis to dispute ownership by these five parties.
3. 3The position of the Crown, at present, is that the evidentiary basis to support the applications for forfeiture will be based on the guilty pleas and agreed statements of facts filed to support those pleas and convictions, the trial evidence and sentencing findings, and the evidence of Forensic document Examiner Javaid Khan with respect to 11 specific objects only.
4. 4The Estate maintains proprietary copyright to the works of Norval Morrisseau for 70 years after his death (2007).
5. 5The Estate has registered the trademark to the syllabic rendering of Norval Morrisseau’s Anishnaabe name, Copper Thunderbird or Miskwaabik Animikii.
6. 6Moral rights include the right to be identified as the creator of the work and to protect the integrity of the work: see Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 14.1(1).
7. 7R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
8. 8The Estate relies upon the test for leave to intervene set out in Fair Voting BC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 619, at paras. 8-13 and Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 669, at para. 2.
9. 9Subject to qualification of expertise, etc.
10. 10[2010] O.J. No. 1856 (Ont. S.C), at para. 30.