R. v. Fercan Developments Inc. et al., (2016) 347 O.A.C. 262 (CA)

• Judge: Laskin, LaForme and Pardu, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 04, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2016), 347 O.A.C. 262 (CA);2016 ONCA 269

R. v. Fercan Dev. Inc. (2016), 347 O.A.C. 262 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.025

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Fercan Developments Inc., GRVN Group Inc. and FirstOntario Credit Union Limited (respondents)

(C59112; 2016 ONCA 269)

Indexed As: R. v. Fercan Developments Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, LaForme and Pardu, JJ.A.

April 14, 2016.

Summary:

The brother of the owners of two properties (Fercan and GRVN properties) was convicted of drug offences respecting a marijuana grow-op on the Fercan property and drugs found at the GRVN property (where he resided). FirstOntario provided mortgage funds for the Fercan property. The Crown applied under s. 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the forfeiture of the two properties. The application against FirstOntario was abandoned after 31 days of evidence. The applications judge dismissed the forfeiture application. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the remaining two owners (Fercan and GVRN) were innocent of any complicity or collusion respecting the drug offences committed at the properties they owned. The respondents sought costs. The applications judge awarded costs of almost $900,000 against the Crown. The applications judge found Crown misconduct constituting a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution". The Crown appealed the costs award. At issue was: "the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to make these awards of costs against the Crown, the test to be applied when assessing the conduct of the Crown for purposes of awarding these costs, whether the Crown's conduct met the test, and how such costs should be quantified".

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 7482

Provincial courts - Ontario - Court of Justice - Jurisdiction (incl. implied) - [See Criminal Law -Topic 5623.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5623.1

Punishments (sentence) - Forfeiture orders - Costs against Crown - The brother of the owners of two properties (Fercan and GRVN properties) was convicted of drug offences respecting a marijuana grow-op on the Fercan property and drugs found at the GRVN property (where he resided) - FirstOntario provided mortgage funds for the Fercan property - The Crown applied under s. 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the forfeiture of the two properties - The application against FirstOntario was abandoned after 31 days of evidence - The applications judge dismissed the forfeiture application - The evidence overwhelmingly established that the remaining two owners (Fercan and GVRN) were innocent of any complicity or collusion respecting the drug offences committed at the properties they owned - The respondents sought costs - The applications judge awarded costs of almost $900,000 against the Crown, finding Crown misconduct constituting a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution" - The Crown appealed the costs award - At issue was: "the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to make these awards of costs against the Crown, the test to be applied when assessing the conduct of the Crown for purposes of awarding these costs, whether the Crown's conduct met the test, and how such costs should be quantified" - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Court of Justice, a statutory court, had the implied jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown in a forfeiture application - Such jurisdiction was necessary for the fair and efficient functioning of the forfeiture regime - The applications judge applied the correct test (marked and unacceptable departure) - The applications judge did not err in finding that the Crown was guilty of misconduct, in both the initiation and conduct of the forfeiture application, warranting costs - On the evidence available to the Crown the application was hopeless and should never have been commenced, particularly respecting FirstOntario - This was not a case of inadvertent or good faith errors by the Crown - The quantum of costs awarded was reasonable, not excessive - See paragraphs 41 to 158.

Practice - Topic 7350

Costs - Costs in criminal proceedings - Payable by Crown - Conduct of Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5623.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372; 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275; 2002 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 549; 2000 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Craig (J.A.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 762; 388 N.R. 254; 271 B.C.A.C. 1; 458 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 15].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 8477 Darlington Crescent - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al. (2011), 279 O.A.C. 268; 333 D.L.R.(4th) 326; 2011 ONCA 363, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) et al. (2011), 313 B.C.A.C. 114; 533 W.A.C. 114; 285 C.C.C.(3d) 13; 2011 BCCA 471, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 37].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Foster et al. (2006), 217 O.A.C. 173; 215 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Romanowicz (J.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 100; 45 O.R.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Nishnawbe Aski Nation et al. v. Eden (2011), 281 O.A.C. 102; 104 O.R. (3d) 321; 2011 ONCA 187, refd to. [para. 45].

Pierre v. McRae - see Nishnawbe Aski Nation et al. v. Eden.

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 46].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Pacific International Securities Inc. (2006), 228 B.C.A.C. 99; 376 W.A.C. 99; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 390; 2006 BCCA 303, refd to. [para. 50].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Russel (W.I.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 3; 447 N.R. 111; 308 O.A.C. 347; 2013 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 52].

Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario - see R. v. Russel (W.I.).

Parsons v. Ontario - see Kotyk Estate et al. v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al.

Kotyk Estate et al. v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al. (2015), 331 O.A.C. 71; 125 O.R.(3d) 168; 2015 ONCA 158, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 2].

R. v. Caron (G.), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 78; 411 N.R. 89; 499 A.R. 309; 514 W.A.C. 309; 2011 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61, refd to. [para. 57].

Jones v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) - see Official Languages Act, Re.

Official Languages Act, Re, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182; 1 N.R. 582; 7 N.B.R.(2d) 526, refd to. [para. 61].

A.Y.S.A. Amateur Youth Soccer Association v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 217; 367 N.R. 264; 2007 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Felderhof (J.B.) (2003), 180 O.A.C. 288; 68 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (2003), 335 A.R. 137; 15 Alta. L.R.(4th) 109; 2003 ABQB 314, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Xanthopoulos (2000), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 562 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 72].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Cronier (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 437 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Ciarniello v. R. (2006), 215 O.A.C. 29; 81 O.R.(3d) 561 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

E.J.A.L. v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group et al. (2009), 244 O.A.C. 359; 240 C.C.C.(3d) 181; 2009 ONCA 16, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Sweeney (D.J.) (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 35; 310 W.A.C. 35; 179 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Taylor (T.E.) (2008), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 247; 835 A.P.R. 247; 2008 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Singh (J.) et al. (2016), 343 O.A.C. 385; 2016 ONCA 108, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Balemba (M.G.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 459; 2009 CanLII 28396 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].

Connolly v. R. (2007), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 794 A.P.R. 281; 2007 NLCA 5, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. 1431633 Ontario Inc., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 266; 250 C.C.C.(3d) 354; 2010 ONSC 266, refd to. [para. 81].

Maple Trust Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Scotia Mortgage Corp. v. Leung et al.

Scotia Mortgage Corp. v. Leung et al. (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 56; 401 W.A.C. 56; 221 C.C.C.(3d) 505; 2007 BCCA 304, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201; 1999 ABCA 367, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Munkonda (C.) (2015), 334 O.A.C. 114; 126 O.R.(3d) 691; 2015 ONCA 309, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Anderson (F.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 167; 458 N.R. 1; 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289; 1088 A.P.R. 289; 2014 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Cole (D.) (2000), 183 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 568 A.P.R. 263; 2000 NSCA 42, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Griffin (J.M.) (2011), 510 A.R. 142; 527 W.A.C. 142; 2011 ABCA 197, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 96].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 123].

Oniel v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Force et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Delchev (N.) (2015), 335 O.A.C. 72; 126 O.R.(3d) 267; 2015 ONCA 381, refd to. [para. 124].

Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [2015] 2 S.C.R. 214; 470 N.R. 200; 369 B.C.A.C. 47; 634 W.A.C. 47; 2015 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 127].

Counsel:

Croft Michaelson, Q.C., and Kevin Wilson, for the appellant, Her Majesty the Queen;

Brian Greenspan and Naomi Lutes, for the respondent, Fercan Developments Inc.;

William Freedman and Patrick Bakos, for the respondent, GRVN Group Inc.;

Louis P. Strezos, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

This appeal was heard on November 30, 2015, before Laskin, LaForme and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On April 4, 2016, LaForme, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.