R. v. Pattison, (1980) 23 A.R. 83 (ProvCt)
|Court:||Provincial Court (Alberta)|
|Case Date:||May 20, 1980|
|Citations:||(1980), 23 A.R. 83 (ProvCt)|
R. v. Pattison (1980), 23 A.R. 83 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Pattison
Indexed As: R. v. Pattison
Alberta Provincial Court
May 20, 1980.
This headnote contains no summary.
Constitutional Law - Topic 6499
Enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act, s. 91(27) - Criminal law - Forfeiture of seized property - Criminal Code, s. 101 - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the federal Crown did not have the power to enact s. 101(6) of the Criminal Code under the criminal law power - The Provincial Court stated that the power to forfeit seized property under s. 101(6) was invalid because it operated in the absence of a criminal conviction and in the absence of a criminal charge - See paragraph 8.
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 101(4) [para. 2]; sect. 101(6) [para. 4].
British North America Act 1867, sect. 91(27).
I. Yaverbaum, for the Crown;
S. Newark, for the accused.
This case was heard by CHISHOLM, J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, at Edmonton, Alberta. The judgment of CHISHOLM, J., was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on May 20, 1980.
MR. YAVERBAUM: Yes, Your Honour, I've made inquiries of Mr. Steed's office, Attorney General's Constitutional Section. And I understand that he has left for court. In any event, I'm not sure whether his presence is integrally required for today.
THE COURT: He was not here on the last occasion in any event.
MR. NEWARK: Yes, he was.
Mr. YAVERBAUM: The position of the Department of the Attorney General for the Province of Alberta I understand is instructions relayed to myself and Mr. Steed by Mr. Hankel of our Department is to take no position in terms of making an argument on whether or not the legislation is in fact constitutionally valid. I understand --
THE COURT: Exhibits 1 and 2 have been filed to that effect.
MR. YAVERBAUM: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. YAVERBAUM: Again I note for the record that nobody is present from the Federal Department of Justice today as well.
THE COURT: So if the record is clear the Federal Department of Justice had in fact filed correspondence with this court indicating that they would not be represented.
MR. YAVERBAUM: I think my friend filed.
MR. NEWARK: That's correct sir and I believe that's the first exhibit or the second exhibit.
THE COURT: That's right. Anything additional, gentlemen?
MR. NEWARK: Nothing from me, sir, no.
MR. YAVERBAUM: Again, Your Honour, I can only repeat I have instructions not to say anything on the constitutional point.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP