Director of Criminal Property and Forfeiture (Man.) v. Lamy, (2015) 321 Man.R.(2d) 86 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: October 01, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 86 (QBM);2015 MBQB 156

Criminal Prop. Dir. v. Lamy (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 86 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.011

The Director of Criminal Property and Forfeiture (plaintiff) v. Jerry Roy Lamy, Diane Lynn Lamy and Clifford Lamy (defendants)

(CI 13-05-00723; 2015 MBQB 156)

Indexed As: Director of Criminal Property and Forfeiture (Man.) v. Lamy

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Dauphin Centre

Harrison, Master

October 1, 2015.

Summary:

The RCMP searched the residence and farm property belonging to the defendant Jerry Lamy. He and Diane Lamy were charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and the production of a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). Forfeiture proceedings were also commenced under Manitoba's Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. The CDSA charges against Jerry Lamy were stayed by the federal Crown. Diane Lamy pleaded guilty and served a conditional sentence. At discovery in the provincial forfeiture proceedings, the Lamys refused to answer certain questions. The Director of Criminal Property and Forfeiture (Man.) brought a motion seeking continued discovery.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Crown - Topic 2

General principles - General - Indivisibility of Crown - [See Crown - Topic 25 ].

Crown - Topic 25

Definitions - "Her Majesty" defined - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed the principle of the divisibility of Her Majesty the Queen - The Master concluded that he was bound by the Alberta Government Telephone case (SCC 1989), wherein it was concluded that the general reference to "her Majesty" in s. 16 of the Interpretation Act [Can.] embraced the Crown in right of a province as well as the Crown in right of Canada - The Master noted that that interpretation was also reflected statutorily in Manitoba under the schedule of definitions (s. 17) of the provincial Interpretation Act, wherein Her Majesty the Queen and the Crown were defined to mean the Sovereign of Canada and territories which would include Manitoba - See paragraphs 25 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 7062

Civil remedies for unlawful activity (Civil Remedies Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, etc.) - Remedies - Forfeiture - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7085 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7085

Civil remedies for unlawful activity (Civil Remedies Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, etc.) - Practice - Discovery - Jerry and Diane Lamy were charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Can.) offences - Forfeiture proceedings were also commenced under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (Man.) respecting Jerry Lamy's farm and property - The charges against Jerry Lamy were stayed by the federal Crown - Diane Lamy pleaded guilty - In the provincial forfeiture proceedings, the Lamys refused to answer certain discovery questions - The Director of Criminal Property and Forfeiture (Man.) moved for further discovery - Issues arose as to whether the provincial Crown Attorney could question Jerry Lamy as a defendant in a civil discovery in light of the stay of proceedings, and whether Diane Lamy could be discovered as she had no registered interest in the property at issue in the forfeiture proceedings - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion for further discovery because, in the circumstances, the Lamys' answers lacked relevancy - See paragraphs 1 to 77.

Evidence - Topic 1299

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Doing of human act - Civil cases - Prior acquittal in criminal case - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that "... evidence of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case is inadmissible in a subsequent civil case, as proof that the party did not commit the offence ..." - See paragraph 14.

Narcotic Control - Topic 1104

Penalties - Forfeiture of seized goods - When available (incl. offence-related property) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7085 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 9].

Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee.

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. 10].

Director Under The Seizure of Criminal Property Act, 2009 v. Kotyk et al. (2013), 427 Sask.R. 193; 591 W.A.C. 193; 2013 SKCA 140, refd to. [para. 13].

Irwin v. Liverance (1998), 91 O.T.C. 207 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 14].

Rizzo et al. v. Hanover Insurance Co. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 230; 14 O.R.(3d) 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Trang (D.) (2004), 357 A.R. 1; 334 W.A.C. 1; 28 Alta. L.R.(4th) 50; 2004 ABCA 246, refd to. [para. 20].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Catagas (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 296 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Van Bemmel (A.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 382; 253 C.C.C.(3d) 284; 2010 ONCA 276, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Craig (J.A.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 767; 388 N.R. 254; 271 B.C.A.C. 1; 458 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Nguyen (K.T.) et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 826; 388 N.R. 329; 271 B.C.A.C. 67; 458 W.A.C. 67, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Ouellette (Y.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 818; 388 N.R. 320, refd to. [para. 24].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 714 Railton Avenue et al. (2014), 322 O.A.C. 54; 2014 ONCA 397, refd to. [para. 25].

Rans Construction (1966) Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1988] 1 F.C. 526; 16 F.T.R. 73 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Theodore v. Duncan, [1919] A.C. 696 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

British Columbia et al. v. Shah et al. (1992), 19 B.C.A.C. 38; 34 W.A.C. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161; [1989] 5 W.W.R. 385; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 289; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian National/Canadian Pacific Telecommunications - see CNCP.

Alberta Government Telephones v. C.R.T.C. - see CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC.

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 41].

Penner v. Niagara Regional Police Services Board et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 125; 442 N.R. 140; 304 O.A.C. 106; 356 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 2013 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 46].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 48].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 53].

Wong v. Shell Canada Ltd. (1995), 174 A.R. 287; 102 W.A.C. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Decorby v. Decorby et al. (1985), 37 Man.R.(2d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Chartier (Bankrupt), Re (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 298; 570 W.A.C. 298; 2013 MBCA 41, refd to. [para. 59].

Chartier v. MNP Ltd. - see Chartier (Bankrupt), Re.

Guindon v. Minister of National Revenue (2015), 473 N.R. 120; 2015 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 66].

Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48; 2004 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 69].

Fort Garry Care Centre Ltd. v. Hospitality Corp. of Manitoba Inc., [1998] 4 W.W.R. 688; 123 Man.R.(2d) 241; 159 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, sect. 16(1), sect. 19 [para. 24].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 21(1)(b), sect. 21(1)(c) [para. 17]; sect. 21(2) [para. 17]; sect. 579(2) [para. 15].

Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, S.M. 2004, c. 1; C.C.S.M., c. C-306, sect. 2 [para. 39]; sect. 17.13 [para. 12].

Interpretation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. I-80; C.C.S.M., c. I-80, sect. 17 [para. 33].

Judgments Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. J-10; C.C.S.M., c. J-10, sect. 13(1) [para. 43].

Real Property Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. R-30; C.C.S.M., c. R-30, sect. 62(1) [para. 71].

Counsel:

Lisa Cupples, for the plaintiff;

Eric B. Irwin, for the defendants.

This motion was heard before Harrison, Master, of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Dauphin, who delivered the following decision on October 1, 2015.