From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Renee Cyr Factum against home seizure without pot conviction   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/jC9lpDgjzUA/m/qixQIRwMDgAJ   
   is Renee Cyr's Memorandum appealing the order seizing half   
   her farm for an average plantation:   
      
   The Crown filed a Cross-Appeal asking for the whole farm.   
      
   This is the Memorandum in response:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE MONTREAL                 COURT OF APPEAL   
   C.A.: 500-09-029318-219   
      
              Judgment of Frederic 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   
      
                 RESPONDENT'S CROSS-APPEAL FACTUM   
                            Renee Cyr   
                           Feb 18 2022   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. In paragraph 16 of the decision, Judge Bachand notes that   
   on Dec 6 2016, Quebec Police raided the home of Alex Mace   
   rented from the Appellant Proprietor at 439 Chemin Plaisance   
   in Chute-Saint-Philippe and found a cannabis plantation with   
   67 mature plants, 470 cuttings and 850 grams of cannabis   
   with an estimated value of over $500,000 at an estimated   
   value of $1,000 per plant. The Tenant was not charged. The   
   Proprietor was charged with S.7 Production of cannabis and   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.   
      
   2. A civil action was commenced to forfeit the instruments   
   of "illegal activit" on the grounds the Proprietor knew or   
   could not have ignored what her Tenant was doing.   
      
   3. The Tenant committed suicide four months after being   
   deprived of his medication. The charges against the   
   Proprietor were later withdrawn.   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 land worth $129,500   
   and residence worth $128,100 without there having been   
   registered a conviction for any illegal activity.   
      
   5. In paragraph 64 of his decision, the judge concluded that   
   eventual value of the successful cultivation of 537 plants,   
   67 mature plants and 470 cuttings, was over half a million   
   dollars.   
      
   6. 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 does not show she directly profited from illegal   
   activities;   
   - evidence does not show her garage or large plot on which   
   the house are located served in the pursuit of these   
   activities.   
      
   7. Paragraphs 46 and 47, the judge says the Appellant   
   Proprietor had "sojourned" at the home, had personal effects   
   stored there, and knew or could not have ignored what her   
   Tenant was doing.   
      
   8. In paragraph 49, he ruled that the Crown's thesis was   
   reinforced by deposits of over $100,000 ($125,000) to   
   Appellant's bank account;   
      
   9. In paragraph 52, he ruled the theses was further   
   supported by the 2015 Lease written on a 2016 form!   
      
   10. The title of the Judgment itself says "Civil   
   confiscation - instrument used in illegal activities!"   
      
   11. 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.   
      
   12. In Para. 56: S.8 al. 1 Lois sur la confiscation says:   
       8. When ruling on the forfeiture application, the court   
       may prescribe any measure it deems necessary or   
       appropriate in the interests of justice, including the   
       remittal to the defendant of any amount by which the   
       proceeds of alienation of forfeited property exceeds the   
       value of the part of the forfeited property that is   
       derived from illegal activity.   
      
   13. Appellant appealed but erred in stating 9 pounds of   
   marijuana rather than 67 mature plants and 470 cuttings were   
   found.   
      
   14. Respondent Crown cross-appealed that the Court erred in   
   not using his discretion to confiscate the whole of the   
   property.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES IN DISPUTE   
      
   15. (A) Appellant appealed that the trial judge erred on the   
   following grounds:   
   (1) No Jurisdiction without conviction for crime;   
   (2) Should be No Jurisdiction without conviction for crime;   
   (3) Seizure was excessive given value of plants seized.   
      
   16. (B) Respondent cross-appealed on the grounds   
   (i) the judge erred:   
   1- Le juge pouvait-il se prononcer sur la remise d'une   
   partie du bien confisque sans qu'une demande ait ete faite   
   dans les procedures en defense et qu'une preuve ait ete   
   administree?   
   2- Le juge a-t-il erre dans son interpretation de la portee   
   de l'article 8 de la Loi?   
   3- Le juge a-t-il erre dans l'enonce des criteres   
   applicables pour encadrer la discretion prevue a l'article 8   
   de la Loi?   
   4- Le juge a-t-il commis une erreur de droit ou a tout le   
   moins manifeste et determinante dans l'application de   
   l'article 8 de la Loi aux faits de l'espece?   
   (ii) Appellant failed to file a Notice of Constitutional   
   Question pursuant to S.76 and 77 of the Civil Procedures.   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   A)(1) CHATTERJEE JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONVICTION   
      
   17. Respondent has provided no case precedents from Quebec   
   for the civil forfeiture of a home and land without   
   conviction and Appellant found no such civil confiscation   
   precedent at Canlii.   
      
   18. Cross-Appellant only proffered the Supreme Court of   
   Canada decision in Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General)   
   [2009] on appeal from an Ontario civil confiscation of the   
   proceeds of illegal activity, not of an instrument.   
      
   19. The Chatterjee case relates to the Ontario Remedies for   
   Organized Crime and other Unlawful Activities Act (CRA) and   
   is an example of disproportionate punishment relative to the   
   non-illegal activity that brings the administration of   
   justice into disrepute.   
      
   20. Chatterjee was arrested for violation of probation and   
   was found in possession of $29,000, and a light and fan that   
   smelled of marijuana.   
      
   21. In paragraph 36, Judge Binnie noted that the dominant   
   purpose is to provincial objectives, the legislation is   
   valid because crime imposes substantial costs on provincial   
   treasuries. The Court also pointed out that civil   
   confiscation had to have a provincial purpose such as to:   
   a) Compensate victims;   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)