Neill v. Vancouver Police Department, [2005] B.C.T.C. 277 (SC)

• Judge: Dillon, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 07, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2005] B.C.T.C. 277 (SC);2005 BCSC 277

Neill v. Vancouver Police, [2005] B.C.T.C. 277 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MR.079

John Kenneth Neill (applicant) v. Vancouver Police Department (respondent)

(23089; 2005 BCSC 277)

Indexed As: Neill v. Vancouver Police Department

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Dillon, J.

March 2, 2005.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdiction) - See paragraphs 25 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 3170

Special powers - Power of seizure - Detention or return of things seized - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 3171

Special powers - Power of seizure - Forfeiture of things seized - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 3173

Special powers - Power of seizure - Disposition of things seized - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Damages - Topic 1910

Torts affecting goods - Wrongful detention (detinue) - General - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Personal Property - Topic 5041

Finding lost goods - Title to goods found - General - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Raponi (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 35; 323 N.R. 373; 354 A.R. 292; 329 W.A.C. 292; 2004 SCC 50, consd. [para. 11].

APC Music & Video Inc. v. Vancouver Police Department et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1657; 2004 BCSC 1657, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244, refd to. [para. 18].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mac (K.M.) et al. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 26; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Perello (E.F.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 46; 342 W.A.C. 46; 2005 SKCA 8, refd to. [para. 19].

Republic National Bank of New York v. Canada (1999), 7 G.T.C. 3107 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1986] 1 C.T.C. 29; 22 C.R.R. 219 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

First City Shopping Centre Group Inc. v. Gleddie (1991), 114 A.R. 34; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 11 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 20].

Bird v. Fort Frances (Town), [1949] O.R. 292; [1949] 2 D.L.R. 791 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Black, [1973] 6 W.W.R. 371; 3 C.C.C.(2d) 446 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Jensen, Re (1976), 36 C.R.N.S. 327 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bergeron v. Deschamps, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 243; 14 N.R. 83; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 461, refd to. [para. 25].

Capostinsky v. Olsen et al. (1981), 27 B.C.L.R. 97; 10 M.V.R. 221 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Lal v. Vancouver (City), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. A54 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. MacLeod (C.T.) et al. (2005), 193 Man.R.(2d) 163; 2005 MBQB 15, refd to. [para. 25].

Butler and Butler and Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 512 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Replevin Act (1978), p. 38 [para. 29].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (1987), para. 46 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Paul Pearson, for the applicant;

Dawn Boblin, for the Vancouver Police.

This application was heard in Chambers, on February 7, 2005, before Dillon, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on March 2, 2005.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.