Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Forfeiture - Offence-related property - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reasoning that the CRA tax debt was an improper consideration, particularly given that the application conceded that issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing evidence of a grow operation, prior to the amendments, to go to forfeiture based on the amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended in 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the significance of the way in which the Appellant rejected involvement with organized crime and only sold to persons with AIDS and friends - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to place significance on the age and total absence of a record - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to provide a rationale policy to address the concept of disproportionality - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address a fine as an alternative to forfeiture, and to consider whether it was necessary to impose a $100,000.00 fine to that end.

The Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of production of marijuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. The marijuana was being produced in a 1,000 square foot residential home owned by the Appellant. Police seized 186 marijuana plants, $22,275 and various other items related to the production of marijuana from the Appellant’s home. Following the Appellant’s arrest, the Canada Revenue Agency assessed the Appellant $250,000 for unpaid taxes relating to her marijuana earnings going back to 1998. The Appellant was 52 years old at the time of the offence and had no previous criminal record. The Appellant denied having any connection to organized crime. The sentencing judge sentenced the Appellant to a conditional sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment, a fine of $100,000 and ordered her to pay a victim surcharge of $15,000. The sentencing judge also ordered the Appellant to forfeit the equipment used to commit the offence, but refused to accede to the Crown’s application for an order of forfeiture of the Alder Street house as being “offence-related property” pursuant to s. 16(1) of the CDSA. The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in failing to order forfeiture of the house. In its view, a forfeiture order would have been appropriate and its impact would not be disproportionate. The fine and the victim surcharge were thus overturned. The court rejected the Crown’s appeal with respect to the fitness of the conditional sentence. In light of the forfeiture order, it was held that the conditional sentence was not unfit.