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 failing to find that the sentencing judge erred in ordering forfeiture based on the need for an adequate level of general deterrence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly considering the “nature and gravity of the offence” and the “circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence” as mandated by s. 19.1(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by placing undue emphasis on the fact that the Appellants purchased their property to grow marijuana - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider partial forfeiture - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the Appellants’ overall sentence was unfit - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended in 2001.

The Appellants were charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”) relating to a grow operation located in a residence in Surrey, British Columbia, in which the police seized 96 marijuana plants. Following a trial before judge alone, the Appellants were found guilty of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 7(1) and s. 5(2) of the CDSA respectively. They were sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence and forfeiture of the residence where the grow operation was located. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the sentencing judge concluding that the sentencing judge had considered all of the criteria set out in subsections 19.1(3) and (4) of the CDSA and that the conclusion was amply supported by the evidence.