This involved an application by Saskatchewan’s Director Under The Seizure of Criminal Property Act, seeking forfeiture of a truck which had been used in a drug transaction valued at approximately $160.
Counsel for the Defendant argued that forfeiture in the circumstances was clearly not in the interests of justice because it was not proportionate to the offence, and because the funds to purchase the truck were advanced by the Defendant’s mother who had no involvement in the offence.
The Court of Queen’s Bench declined to order forfeiture at the time of the application, but stated that the vehicle would remain in the custody of the Crown, pending the outcome of the Mihalyko case, which was at the time before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Given the eventual outcome of Mihalyko, however, it seems that Mr. Kaytor’s chances of avoiding forfeiture under Section 7(1) of the Seizure of Criminal Property Act are quite bleak.
Alberta (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) v. Clarke, 2009 ABQB 518, an Alberta civil forfeiture case, provides authority for the proposition that an uninvolved co-owner of an instrument of crime can seek compensation for their interest in a piece of property that is forfeit. In Mr. Kaytor’s case, however, the Defendant’s mother was not the registered owner of the vehicle, and establishing that she retains an interest in it could be an uphill battle indeed.
Decided by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench on February 15, 2012.
Click here for the full text of the decision.