Crown can seek forfeiture of seized assets in derailed Quebec drug cases: top court

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says the Crown can seek the forfeiture of assets seized in a drug probe even though the criminal cases against most of the accused were set aside.

The matter began when several people were charged with offences related to cannabis production in Quebec.

One of the accused individuals pleaded guilty and charges against the others were stayed due to unreasonable delays that violated their Charter rights.

The Crown made an application in the Court of Québec for the forfeiture of assets, including cash and homes, that were frozen or seized during the investigation.

Owners of the property unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the prosecution’s application on the basis the court had no authority to consider forfeiture because the criminal proceedings were stayed.

The court concluded it had jurisdiction flowing from two Criminal Code provisions and a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provision.

The individuals then argued their case in Superior Court, but it dismissed their application.

The Quebec Court of Appeal subsequently sided with the owners, ruling there was no legal authority under the provisions in question to hear the Crown’s forfeiture application.

The Crown then took its case to the Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision Friday, the Supreme Court said the Court of Québec does have jurisdiction to proceed with a criminal forfeiture hearing, but not under the suggested provisions, which tie that authority to trial and sentencing.

Rather, the court has jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings under another Criminal Code provision that operates independently of trial matters, the top court said.

The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Court of Québec for continuation of forfeiture proceedings, along with consideration of the owners’ application for return of the property.

The top court said forfeiture proceedings are distinct from other criminal proceedings in that they are not aimed at determining the criminal responsibility of accused people or at punishing them.

“Parliament’s justification for its various rules authorizing the forfeiture of criminally tainted property to the Crown is easy enough to identify: the state can and indeed should confiscate that property to ensure that crime does not pay,” Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court.

This justification also reflects a deterrent effect by reducing the incentive for offending and depriving individuals and criminal organizations of property that sustains illegal activity, Kasirer wrote.

“Moreover, returning criminally tainted property to unclean hands runs the risk that the administration of justice be brought into disrepute should that taint be somehow transferred to the court itself.”

Although a stay of the proceedings aimed at determining an accused person’s criminal liability brings criminal proceedings to a conclusive end and leaves the accused in a position of presumptive innocence, it does not deprive a court of all forfeiture jurisdiction, the top court added.

“Parliament has provided for a number of circumstances in which forfeiture can be ordered even where no accused has been tried,” Kasirer wrote.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 17, 2026.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press