R. v. Perkins

R. v. Perkins

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to declare the administrative forfeiture null and void; the Civil Forfeiture Act does not conflict with s.462.34 of the Criminal Code such that the Code's supremacy is engaged; the accused's appropriate remedy is to apply under s.14.11 of the Civil Forfeiture Act to set aside the forfeiture, and the s.462.34 application is adjourned pending that process.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2430
Parties
Crown: Regina; Interested Party: Director of Civil Forfeiture; Accused: Corey Jim Perkins
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Return of Seized Property Under S.462.34 of the Criminal Code; Adjourned Pending S.14.11 Application Under Civil Forfeiture Act
Outcome
Application under s.462.34 of the Criminal Code adjourned; accused granted liberty to apply under s.14.11 of the Civil Forfeiture Act to set aside administrative forfeiture.
Legal Topics
S.462.34 Criminal Code, Civil Forfeiture Act Administrative Forfeiture, Notice Requirements, S.14.11 Relief From Forfeiture
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Forfeiture Procedural Law S.462.34 Criminal Code Civil Forfeiture Act Administrative Forfeiture Notice Requirements S.14.11 Relief From Forfeiture

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Director of Civil Forfeiture

Interested Party

Corey Jim Perkins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Return of Seized Property Under S.462.34 of the Criminal Code; Adjourned Pending S.14.11 Application Under Civil Forfeiture Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.462.34 application can proceed where property has been administratively forfeited under provincial Civil Forfeiture Act
  2. 2 Whether Director complied with statutory notice requirements for administrative forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to declare the administrative forfeiture null and void

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to declare the administrative forfeiture null and void; the Civil Forfeiture Act does not conflict with s.462.34 of the Criminal Code such that the Code's supremacy is engaged; the accused's appropriate remedy is to apply under s.14.11 of the Civil Forfeiture Act to set aside the forfeiture, and the s.462.34 application is adjourned pending that process.

Court Disposition

Application under s.462.34 of the Criminal Code adjourned; accused granted liberty to apply under s.14.11 of the Civil Forfeiture Act to set aside administrative forfeiture.

Orders

  • Accused's s.462.34 application adjourned to a date to be set.
  • Accused granted liberty to commence an action by petition or notice of civil claim under s.14.11 of the Civil Forfeiture Act to seek to set aside the forfeiture.