Director of Civil Forfeiture (B.C.) v. Hells Angels Motorcycle Corp. et al., 2014 BCCA 330

• Judge: Chiasson, Frankel and Willcock, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 20, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2014 BCCA 330;(2014), 360 B.C.A.C. 170 (CA)

Civil Forfeiture Dir. v. Hells Angels (2014), 360 B.C.A.C. 170 (CA);

    617 W.A.C. 170

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.004

An Action under the Civil Forfeiture Act in Rem Against:

The land and structures situated at 805 Victoria Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, and having a legal description of PID 004-954-581, Lot 7, Block 5, Section 1 Nanaimo District Plan 2009, PID 006-637-167, Lot 8, Block 5, Section 1 Nanaimo District Plan 2009 (The "NHAMC Clubhouse") and the contents of the NHAMC Clubhouse, including but not limited to various articles of clothing, bar equipment and supplies, including all alcohol, $10,642.17 in Canadian currency, $278.00 in United States currency, a 2006 Harley Davidson with License Plate #K95059, and a 2003 Harley Davidson with License Plate #K48229.

Director of Civil Forfeiture (appellant/plaintiff) v. Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation, Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd., Richard Phillips, Lloyd Stennes, Robert Widdifield, Raymond Bradley Cunningham, Lawrence Dean Bergstrom, Gordon Keith Jones, Randolph Basaraba, Steven Elliott, Patrick Henry, Alan Murray, Lea Sheppe, Rajinder Singh Sandhu, Ralph MacGregor, Sean Kendall, and all others interested in the Property (respondents/defendants) and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents/respondents)

(CA040394; 2014 BCCA 330)

Indexed As: Director of Civil Forfeiture (B.C.) v. Hells Angels Motorcycle Corp. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, Frankel and Willcock, JJ.A.

August 20, 2014.

Summary:

In January 2001, the police investigated the activities of a chapter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, its facilities and members (Project Halo). During the investigation, wiretap authorizations were obtained. Pursuant to s. 187(1) of the Criminal Code, the documents relating to the applications for authorizations were sealed. Federal Crown charges arising from Project Halo were stayed and the Provincial Crown did not lay any charges. In 2007, the Director of Civil Forfeiture initiated an action against Hells Angels Motorcycle Corp., Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd. and a number of individuals (the respondents), seeking forfeiture of chattels and real property. The Director intended to tender evidence gathered during Project Halo, including intercepted calls, in support of the claim for forfeiture. The respondents applied for an order giving them access to the affidavits filed in support of the wiretap authorizations (i.e., an application to open the sealed packets).

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Davies, J., granted the order to open the packets pursuant to s. 187(1.3) of the Criminal Code. The Director appealed. The respondents argued that Davies J. did not err in the approach he took to their application. In addition, they submitted, by way of a preliminary objection, that the Appeal Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, as an order opening a wiretap packet was criminal in nature and Parliament had not provided for an appeal to an intermediate appellate court. Thus, the only avenue of appeal available to the Director was by means of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The Director claimed that this appeal was civil in nature and that jurisdiction was conferred on the Appeal Court by the Court of Appeal Act (B.C.).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Chiasson, J.A., dissenting, agreed with the respondents that this appeal was criminal in nature and that, as a result, the Appeal Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly the court quashed the appeal. In light of the majority's conclusion on jurisdiction, the court did not deal with the substantive grounds raised by the Director.

Courts - Topic 8683

Provincial courts - British Columbia - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Criminal appeals - See paragraphs 80 to 181.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting materials (incl. access to sealed packet) - See paragraphs 80 to 181.

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 624; 387 N.R. 206; 249 O.A.C. 355; 2009 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 11].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 11].

Director of Civil Forfeiture (B.C.) v. Crowley (2013), 334 B.C.A.C. 182; 572 W.A.C. 182; 2013 BCCA 89, refd to. [para. 11].

Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 3; 201 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 19, 102].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 266 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [paras. 30, 152].

R. v. Turangan and Chui (1976), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 249 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Cass (1985), 71 A.R. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 33, 154].

R. v. Kumar (1987), 54 Sask.R. 159; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1987] 1 S.C.R. ix; 79 N.R. 395; 58 Sask.R. 80, refd to. [paras. 35, 156].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. R. (1983), 24 Sask.R. 308; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Ciancio (S.R.) (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 1; 385 W.A.C. 1; 2006 BCCA 311, refd to. [paras. 39, 157].

R. v. Sandhu (R.S.) (2012), 317 B.C.A.C. 85; 540 W.A.C. 85; 279 C.C.C.(3d) 360; 2012 BCCA 73, refd to. [paras. 40, 157].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Ontario (2011), 285 O.A.C. 160; 281 C.C.C.(3d) 167; 2011 ONCA 624, refd to. [paras. 42, 177].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 45].

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Canada et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 130; 433 W.A.C. 130; 236 C.C.C.(3d) 204; 2008 ABCA 294, affd. in part [2010] 1 S.C.R. 721; 402 N.R. 206; 482 A.R. 66; 490 W.A.C. 66; 263 O.A.C. 4; 2010 SCC 21, refd to. [paras. 48, 174].

R. v. White (M.J.) - see Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Canada et al.

R. v. Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 1; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 50, 171].

Angel Acres Recreation & Festival Property Ltd. v. R. et al. (2006), 227 B.C.A.C. 302; 374 W.A.C. 302; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 501; 2006 BCCA 285, refd to. [paras. 55, 157].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 58, 157].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Wilson (A.J.) (2012), 331 B.C.A.C. 195; 565 W.A.C. 195; 2012 BCCA 517, leave to appeal refused [2013] 3 S.C.R. xi, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Heikel et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1776; 97 N.R. 88; 100 A.R. 396, refd to. [para. 155].

Canada (Attorney General) v. 311165 B.C. Ltd. (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 1; 531 W.A.C. 1; 286 C.C.C.(3d) 474; 2011 BCCA 409, refd to. [para. 157].

Saxena v. Thailand (Kingdom) (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 198; 152 W.A.C. 198; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, refd to. [para. 157].

Prime Real Estate Holdings Corp. v. Ontario et al., [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 273; 2013 ONCA 346, refd to. [para. 157].

Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA, [1980] 1 All E.R. 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 187(1.2), sect. 187(1.3), sect. 187(1.4), sect. 187(1.5) [para. 123]; sect. 674 [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.) (2014 Looseleaf Update, Release 108), p. 23-5 [para. 144].

Counsel:

D.B. Ryneveld, Q.C., and P.D. Ameerali, for the appellant;

P.C.M. Freeman, Q.C., and J.C. Adams, for the respondents, Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd., R. Phillips, L. Stennes, and R. Widdifield;

D.J. Strachan, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

R.G. Garson and P.W. Hogg, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on May 7, 8 and 9, 2014, before Chiasson, Frankel and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on August 20, 2014, including the following opinions:

Chiasson, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 79;

Frankel, J.A. (Willcock, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 80 to 181.