From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Renee Cyr appeals $130K Forfeit for 9 pounds pot   
      
   JCT: I'm presuming a pound of pot is about $1,000. So   
   she got caught with $9,000 of pot and they're seizing   
   $130,000 in her property.   
      
   Forfeiture is being used against people convicted of   
   pot growing offences, going after their homes, and   
   getting them. Just Trudeau's way to helping suppress   
   competition to his high-prices corporate growers.   
      
   But I think the Crown made a big mistake!!   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE MONTREAL                 COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   No:   
      
   No: 700-17-014606-171   
      
                                Renee Cyr   
                                 Appellant - Defendant   
      
                                 -and-   
      
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 Respondent - Plaintiff   
      
      
                         ----------------   
                         NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
                          (S.352 C.C.P.)   
                         ----------------   
      
      
   FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL   
      
   1. The Appellant appeals from a judgment of the Superior   
   Court rendered by Honorable Superior Court Justice Frediric   
   Bachand, J.C.S., District of Terrebonne, which ordered   
   forfeiture of Defendant's property pursuant S.7 & S.8 al. 1   
   Lois sur la confiscation.   
      
   2. The date of judgment rendered at the hearing is Dec 29   
   2020.   
      
   3. The duration of the trial was 3 days.   
      
   4. The Appellant also files with this Notice of Appeal a   
   copy of the first instance judgment in Schedule 1.   
      
   5. The value of the subject matter is:   
   ($129,500 + 128,100) / 2 = $128,800.   
      
   6. The file is not confidential.   
      
   7. The trial judge erred for the following reasons:   
      
   ERRORS OF LAW   
      
   A) Jurisdiction   
      
   8. The trial judge erred in law in deciding the court had   
   jurisdiction to treat with the proceeds of illegal activity   
   without any determination that illegal activity took place.   
      
   9. The appellant intends to demonstrate:   
      
       1) On Dec 6 2016, the Appellant was charged with S.7   
       Production of cannabis and S.5(2) Possession for the   
       Purpose of Trafficking with recourse to a jury trial.   
      
       2) A civil action was commenced to forfeit proceeds of   
       "illegal activity."   
      
       3) The criminal charges were withdrawn.   
      
       4) On Dec 29 2020, Superior Court Justice Bachand   
       granted a Forfeiture Order under S.7 & S.8 al. 1 Lois   
       sur la confiscation for 50% of the Appellant's property   
       without there having been a conviction for any illegal   
       activity registered.   
      
       5) Para.4: S.7 al. 1 Lois sur la confiscation:   
            7. The court grants the forfeiture application if   
            it is convinced that the property is the proceeds   
            or an instrument of unlawful activity.   
      
       6) Para.56: S.8 al. 1 Lois sur la confiscation:   
            8. When ruling on the forfeiture application...   
            the value of the part of the forfeited property   
            that is derived from illegal activity.   
      
       7) Judgment Title has "d'activites illegales."   
      
       8) Para.5: "for illegal activities."   
      
       9) Para.6: "demonstrated criminal activities."   
      
       10) Para.60: Michelle Gallant is cited on 1)   
       "instruments of illegal activities." Forfeiture of 2)   
       "instruments of crime," 3) "proceeds of crime," 4)   
       "resources derived from crime," 5) "disproportionate to   
       seriousness of criminal allegations."   
      
   10. This error of law is overriding because jurisdiction for   
   forfeiture is predicated on illegal activity being   
   established upon conviction for the offence and it has not   
   been so established herein. Jurisdiction to determine   
   whether illegal activity had taken place  was with a   
   Superior Court Judge and Jury and not one judge alone.   
      
   11. In 2003, in Hitzig v. HMTQ, in Paragraph 170, the   
   Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that fixing the medical   
   exemption had resurrected the S.4(1) Possession prohibition   
   that had been invalid over the previous 2 years while the   
   exemption had been malfunctioning since Aug 1 2001, 4,000   
   charges were withdrawn in Dec 2003. Given the new   
   prohibition, that "to establish medical need is to be simply   
   exempt." Appellant never had the chance to establish medical   
   need to a jury and thus be acquitted.   
      
   Jurisdiction should not exist without conviction   
      
   12. The process claims to determine the civil punishment of   
   illegal activities. Appellant submits it doesn't matter how   
   criminal the civil judge thinks the matter looks, it takes   
   the jurisdiction of a criminal court jury to officially   
   determine how criminal something that looks criminal upon   
   first inspection really is.   
      
   13. If such jurisdiction has been exercised in the past to   
   forfeit assets without prior conviction for illegal   
   activity, Appellant submits no asset forfeiture should be   
   constitutional lacking establishment of illegal activity.   
   Appellant seeks a declaration that a Forfeiture Order   
   without conviction for illegal activity violates S.12 of the   
   Charter.   
      
   EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT   
      
   14. Appellant now has a medical permit to grow a pound a   
   week to satisfy a 69-gram/day prescription. The 9 pounds   
   seized in the raid represent 9 weeks of medication, barely   
   one crop cycle, about $1,000/pound. In an era where the use   
   of large quantities of marijuana to assuage ailments is now   
   accepted and where there is no more limit on home storage   
   allowing bumper crops to pose no penal threat, Appellant   
   submits that asset forfeiture of $128,800 for the mere   
   possession of the $9,000 worth of marijuana to satisfy   
   Appellant's current dosage for only 9 weeks is   
   unconstitutionally and excessively arbitrary contrary to the   
   principles of fundamental justice in violating the S.12   
   Charter Right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual   
   punishment.   
      
   CONCLUSIONS:   
      
   15. The Appellant will ask the Court to   
      
   a) ALLOW the appeal;   
      
   b) SET ASIDE the first instance judgment; or   
      
   c) REDUCE the percentage forfeited.   
      
   d) CONDEMN the respondent to pay the appellant legal costs   
   both in the first instance and on appeal.   
      
   16. This notice of appeal has been served on the Office of   
   the Superior Court, District of Terrebonne and to Maxime   
   Seyer-Cloutier for the office of the Attorney General for   
   Quebec in the first instance at the St. Jerome courthouse.   
      
   Dated at Saint Jerome on Jan 27 2021.   
      
      
      
                                _________________________   
                                For the Appellant:   
                                Renee Cyr   
                                reneecyr11@gmail.com   
      
         LIST OF SCHEDULES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
   SCHEDULE 1: Judgment rendered Dec 29 2020 by Honorable   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)