Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
Today, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation examines a civil forfeiture case in Quebec, raising major concerns about government overreach and the impact of judicial stays on property seizure.
Key Issues Discussed
Civil Forfeiture & Judicial Stays
In several drug trafficking cases in Quebec, individuals were acquitted—not due to a legal finding on the charges, but because their right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
The court issued judicial stays, meaning the charges were effectively dismissed, but no formal determination of guilt or innocence was made.
Despite this, the Quebec government argued they could still proceed with civil forfeiture because no acquittal had been entered.
The court ultimately ruled against the government, stopping the forfeiture actions.
The government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but leave was denied.
Why This Case Mattered
Limits of Civil Forfeiture Powers
Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize property connected to alleged crimes, even without a criminal conviction.
While forfeiture can occur independently of criminal charges, should the state be allowed to seize assets when it failed to secure a conviction or even complete a trial?
This case highlighted the risk of governments using civil forfeiture as a “backdoor” way to punish individuals who were not found guilty in court.
The Significance of Judicial Stays
In Canadian law, a judicial stay means the accused is presumed not guilty—just like an acquittal.
The government’s argument that only acquittals block civil forfeiture raised troubling questions about whether judicial stays are treated as lesser legal protections.
If the Supreme Court had taken the case, it could have affirmed that judicial stays should carry the same weight as acquittals in preventing asset seizure.
Missed Opportunity by the Supreme Court
By declining to hear this case, the Supreme Court left critical legal questions unanswered:
Should a judicial stay be treated the same as an acquittal for civil forfeiture purposes?
Can the government use civil forfeiture to bypass the burden of proving guilt in criminal court?
What safeguards should exist to prevent individuals from facing endless legal battles over the same alleged conduct?
Without a Supreme Court ruling, provinces could still amend their laws to allow civil forfeiture actions even when criminal charges are stayed—creating uncertainty and potential injustice.Post navigation
