From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Renee Cyr Factum against $130K Forfeit for 9 pounds pot   
      
   JCT: At about $700 per pound, Renee Cyr got busted at   
   home with 9 pounds of pot and 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. But they made a mistake with Renee, not   
   getting a conviction before going for the house.   
      
   Today, she served her Appeal Factum on the Crown:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE MONTREAL                 COURT OF APPEAL   
   C.A.: 500-09-029318-219   
      
              Judgment of Frediric Bachand, J.C.S.,   
              Cour Superieure District of Terrebonne   
                 on Dec 29 2020 700-17-014606-171   
      
                                 Renee Cyr   
                                 APPELLANT - Defendant   
                                 RESPONDENT in Cross-Appeal   
      
                                 -and-   
      
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 RESPONDENT - Plaintiff   
                                 CROSS-APPELLANT   
      
                        APPELLANT'S FACTUM   
                            Renee Cyr   
                           Apr 23 2021   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   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 which allows recourse to a jury trial.   
      
   2. A civil action was commenced to forfeit proceeds from   
   "illegal activity."   
      
   3. The criminal charges were later withdrawn.   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 plot worth $129,500   
   and residence $128,100 without there having been registered   
   a conviction for any illegal activity.   
      
   5. In Para. 66, Judge Bachand noted the Crown:   
   - never alleged she directly participated, only alleged she   
   knew or should have known;   
   - criminal charges against her were withdrawn;   
   - evidence cannot link her to any criminalized group;   
   - evidence doens't even show she directly profited from   
   illegal activities;   
   - nothing indicates her large plot on which her home is   
   located served in some way the pursuit of these activities.   
      
   6. The title of the Judgment itself says "Civil confiscation   
   - instrument used in illegal activities!"   
      
   7. In Para. 4: S.7 al. 1 Lois sur la confiscation says:   
       7. The court grants the forfeiture application if it is   
       convinced that the property is the proceeds or an   
       instrument of unlawful activity.   
      
   8. In Para. 5: "for illegal activities."   
      
   9. In Para. 6: "demonstrated criminal activities."   
      
   10. In 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.   
      
   11. In Para. 60: Michelle Gallant mentions:   
   - instruments of crime;   
   - proceeds of crime;   
   - resources derived from crime;   
   - proceeds of crime;   
   - instruments of crime;   
   - instruments of crime;   
   - linked to some criminal offence;   
   - criminal allegations;   
      
   12. Seizure is aimed at instruments of illegal activity.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES IN DISPUTE   
      
   13. The trial judge erred on the following grounds:   
   A) No Jurisdiction without conviction for crime;   
   B) Should be No Jurisdiction without conviction for crime;   
   C) Seizure was excessive given value of marijuana seized.   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   A) NO JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONVICTION   
      
   14. 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.   
   This error of law is overriding because jurisdiction for   
   forfeiture is predicated on illegal activity being   
   established upon conviction for the crime and it has not   
   been so established herein. Jurisdiction to determine   
   whether illegal activity had taken place was with a Criminal   
   Court Judge and Jury and not one Civil Court Judge alone.   
      
   15. On Oct 7 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. In Dec   
   2003, 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 be   
   acquitted by establishing medical need to a jury.   
      
   B) SHOULD BE NO JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONVICTION   
      
   16. The process claims to determine civil punishment for   
   criminal activities. Appellant submits it doesn't matter how   
   criminal the matter looks to the civil judge, it takes the   
   jurisdiction of a criminal court jury to officially   
   determine how criminal what looks criminal upon first   
   inspection really is.   
      
   17. Even if such jurisdiction to forfeit assets without   
   prior conviction for illegal activity has been exercised in   
   the past, Appellant submits no asset forfeiture should be   
   constitutional lacking establishment of illegal activity. A   
   Forfeiture Order without conviction for illegal activity.   
      
   C) EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT   
      
   18. Appellant now has a medical permit to grow over one   
   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, valued at $700/pound in today's   
   prices. In an era where the use of large quantities of   
   marijuana to assuage ailments is now accepted and where   
   there is no longer any limit on home storage allowing bumper   
   crops to no longer pose penal threat, Appellant submits that   
   asset forfeiture of $128,800 for the possession of the under   
   $7,000 worth of marijuana 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.   
      
   PART IV - CONCLUSION SOUGHT:   
      
   19. 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.   
      
                           ATTESTATION   
      
   Appellant attests that the factum is in compliance with   
   Rules of the Court.   
      
                    TIME REQUESTED FOR HEARING   
   Appellant requests a hearing of 1 hour.   
      
                     CONSENT FOR ORAL HEARING   
   Appellant consents that the appeal be decided on the   
   basis of the factums without an oral hearing.   
      
   Dated at Saint Jerome on Apr 23 2021.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)