R. v. Reeve

R. v. Reeve

The Provincial Court has jurisdiction to hear a s.24 CDSA application and to order compensation under s.24(5) where a justice is satisfied the applicant was lawfully entitled to possession even if the controlled substances were destroyed without a prior s.26(2) order; however Part III CDSA does not authorize return or compensation for ordinary personal property (e.g. grow equipment), which must be pursued in a court of inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
2018 NSPC 30
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant/accused: Sherri Reeve
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Controlled Substances / CDSA Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling on S.24 CDSA Application After Charges Stayed
Outcome
Preliminary motion contesting Provincial Court jurisdiction dismissed; Court holds it has jurisdiction to hear s.24 CDSA application and to order compensation in lieu for destroyed controlled substances but not to order return/compensation for personal property (grow equipment) under Part III CDSA.
Legal Topics
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Section 24 Compensation, Section 26 Disposal Orders, Section 29 Emergency Destruction, Forfeiture and Return of Seized Substances, Jurisdiction of Provincial Court, Return of Seized Property Vs Personal Property
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Procedural Law Administrative Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Section 24 Compensation Section 26 Disposal Orders Section 29 Emergency Destruction +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/respondent

Sherri Reeve

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Controlled Substances / CDSA Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling on S.24 CDSA Application After Charges Stayed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Provincial Court has jurisdiction under Part III CDSA to order compensation for controlled substances destroyed in the absence of a s.26(2) order
  2. 2 Whether the Provincial Court has jurisdiction under Part III CDSA to order return or compensation for non-substance personal property (grow equipment) seized or damaged during a search
  3. 3 Whether s.24(5) CDSA operates as a conditional remedy only when a s.26(2) order exists

Ratio Decidendi

The Provincial Court has jurisdiction to hear a s.24 CDSA application and to order compensation under s.24(5) where a justice is satisfied the applicant was lawfully entitled to possession even if the controlled substances were destroyed without a prior s.26(2) order; however Part III CDSA does not authorize return or compensation for ordinary personal property (e.g. grow equipment), which must be pursued in a court of inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Preliminary motion contesting Provincial Court jurisdiction dismissed; Court holds it has jurisdiction to hear s.24 CDSA application and to order compensation in lieu for destroyed controlled substances but not to order return/compensation for personal property (grow equipment) under Part III CDSA.

Orders

  • Preliminary motion contesting jurisdiction dismissed
  • Proceed to hearing of Ms. Reeve's s.24 CDSA application to determine lawful ownership and, if established, quantum of compensation in lieu for destroyed controlled substances