R. v. Clayton

R. v. Clayton

Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had a possessory interest in the $5,970 seized; the inference of possession from the location of the money was undermined by the applicant's socioeconomic evidence and by her failure to assert ownership, therefore the return of funds was denied.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 BCSC 284
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (applicant): Sarah Louise Clayton; Co Accused: Arthur Todd Kelly; Co Accused: Eddie Charles Legault
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession for Purpose of Trafficking / Pre Trial Application Under S.462.34(4) Criminal Code for Return of Seized Funds
Outcome
Application dismissed; no return of seized funds ordered.
Legal Topics
S.462.34(4) Criminal Code, Return of Seized Funds, Possessory Interest, Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Right to Silence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Procedure Asset Forfeiture S.462.34(4) Criminal Code Return of Seized Funds Possessory Interest Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities) Right to Silence

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Sarah Louise Clayton

Accused (applicant)

Arthur Todd Kelly

Co Accused

Eddie Charles Legault

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession for Purpose of Trafficking / Pre Trial Application Under S.462.34(4) Criminal Code for Return of Seized Funds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant had a valid possessory interest in the seized funds
  2. 2 Whether release of funds was necessary to meet legal expenses (not disputed)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the onus on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had a possessory interest in the $5,970 seized; the inference of possession from the location of the money was undermined by the applicant's socioeconomic evidence and by her failure to assert ownership, therefore the return of funds was denied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no return of seized funds ordered.

Orders

  • Application under s.462.34(4) dismissed; seized funds to remain in custody of authorities
  • Applicant granted liberty to reapply with additional disclosure