Date:
20070511
Docket:
A-71-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 186
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
SKANDER
TOURKI
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DESJARDINS
J.A.
[1]
This
is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Court (Harrington J.) (2006 FC
50) dismissing the action brought by the appellant, Mr. Tourki, under
subsection 30(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and
Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 (the Act). Harrington J.
held, inter alia, that in an action under section 30 of the Act,
the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister) to confirm that
currency seized under the Act is forfeited, the appropriate procedure being an
application for judicial review.
Facts
[2]
On
July 5, 2003, the appellant boarded a flight from Montréal to Paris. The private
security corporation that was responsible for the security checkpoint had
informed customs that Mr. Tourki had told them that his briefcase contained
$25,000 in currency from the sale of an automobile. Before the plane left, two
officers asked Mr. Tourki to disembark. When his person and baggage were
searched, a briefcase containing banknotes totalling $102,642.33 was found. The
notes were seized as forfeit by a customs officer. The Minister subsequently
confirmed the forfeiture.
[3]
The
appellant brought an action under section 30 of the Act. He challenged the
Minister's decision that the appellant had violated section 12 of the Act
and the Minister's decision to confirm the forfeiture of the notes. The
appellant also challenged the validity of sections 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 22 to
29 of the Act on the ground that they were inconsistent with sections 7, 8 and
11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).
[4]
The
trial judge dismissed the action. He held that, in an action under
section 30 of the Act, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to
review the Minister's decision to confirm the forfeiture of the currency. In
addition, the trial judge was of the opinion that the appellant had violated
section 12 of the Act by failing to report to customs the exportation of
money of a value greater than $10,000.00. He also held that the Act did not
violate the rights guaranteed by sections 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter.
Relevant
Legislation
[5]
I
will first set out the relevant sections of the Act.
|
Object
3.
The object of this Act is
(a)
to implement specific measures to detect and deter money laundering and the
financing of terrorist activities and to facilitate the investigation and
prosecution of money laundering offences and terrorist activity financing
offences, including
|
Objet
3.
La présente loi a pour objet :
a) de mettre en œuvre des
mesures visant à détecter et décourager le recyclage des produits de la
criminalité et le financement des activités terroristes et à faciliter les
enquêtes et les poursuites relatives aux infractions de recyclage des
produits de la criminalité et aux infractions de financement des activités
terroristes, notamment :
|
|
(i)
establishing record keeping and client identification requirements for
financial services providers and other persons or entities that engage in
businesses, professions or activities that are susceptible to being used for
money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities,
|
(i)
imposer des obligations de tenue de documents et d’identification des clients
aux fournisseurs de services financiers et autres personnes ou entités qui se
livrent à l’exploitation d’une entreprise ou à l’exercice d’une profession ou
d’activités susceptibles d’être utilisées pour le recyclage des produits de
la criminalité ou pour le financement des activités terroristes,
|
|
(ii)
requiring the reporting of suspicious financial transactions and of
cross-border movements of currency and monetary instruments, and
|
(ii)
établir un régime de déclaration obligatoire des opérations financières
douteuses et des mouvements transfrontaliers d’espèces et d’effets,
|
|
(iii)
establishing an agency that is responsible for dealing with reported and
other information;
|
(iii)
constituer un organisme chargé de l’examen de renseignements, notamment ceux
portés à son attention en application du sous-alinéa (ii);
|
|
(b)
to respond to the threat posed by organized crime by providing law
enforcement officials with the information they need to deprive criminals of
the proceeds of their criminal activities, while ensuring that appropriate
safeguards are put in place to protect the privacy of persons with respect to
personal information about themselves; and
|
b) de combattre le crime
organisé en fournissant aux responsables de l’application de la loi les
renseignements leur permettant de priver les criminels du produit de leurs
activités illicites, tout en assurant la mise en place des garanties
nécessaires à la protection de la vie privée des personnes à l’égard des
renseignements personnels les concernant;
|
|
(c)
to assist in fulfilling Canada’s international commitments
to participate in the fight against transnational crime, particularly money
laundering, and the fight against terrorist activity.
|
c) d’aider le Canada à
remplir ses engagements internationaux dans la lutte contre le crime
transnational, particulièrement le recyclage des produits de la criminalité,
et la lutte contre les activités terroristes.
|
|
Currency
and monetary instruments
12.
(1) Every person or entity referred to in subsection (3) shall report to
an officer, in accordance with the regulations, the importation or
exportation of currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater
than the prescribed amount.
. .
.
|
Déclaration
12.
(1) Les personnes ou entités visées au
paragraphe (3) sont tenues de déclarer à l’agent, conformément aux
règlements, l’importation ou l’exportation des espèces ou effets d’une valeur
égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire.
[…]
|
|
(3)
Currency or monetary instruments shall be reported under subsection (1)
|
(3)
Le déclarant est, selon le cas :
|
|
(a)
in the case of currency or monetary instruments in the actual possession of a
person arriving in or departing from Canada, or that form part of their
baggage if they and their baggage are being carried on board the same
conveyance, by that person or, in prescribed circumstances, by the person in
charge of the conveyance;
. .
.
|
a) la personne ayant en sa
possession effective ou parmi ses bagages les espèces ou effets se trouvant à
bord du moyen de transport par lequel elle est arrivée au Canada ou a quitté
le pays ou la personne qui, dans les circonstances réglementaires, est
responsable du moyen de transport;
[…]
|
|
Seizure
and forfeiture
18.
(1) If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that
subsection 12(1) has been contravened, the officer may seize as forfeit
the currency or monetary instruments.
|
Saisie
et confiscation
18.
(1) S’il a des motifs raisonnables de
croire qu’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), l’agent peut
saisir à titre de confiscation les espèces ou effets.
|
|
(2)
The officer shall, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, return
the seized currency or monetary instruments to the individual from whom they
were seized or to the lawful owner unless the officer has reasonable
grounds to suspect that the currency or monetary instruments are proceeds
of crime within the meaning of subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or
funds for use in the financing of terrorist activities.
|
(2)
Sur réception du paiement de la pénalité réglementaire, l’agent restitue au
saisi ou au propriétaire légitime les espèces ou effets saisis sauf s’il
soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu’il s’agit de produits de la
criminalité au sens du paragraphe 462.3(1) du Code criminel ou de fonds
destinés au financement des activités terroristes.
|
|
(3)
An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments under subsection (1)
shall
|
(3)
L’agent qui procède à la saisie-confiscation prévue au
paragraphe (1) :
|
|
(a)
if they were not imported or exported as mail, give the person from whom they
were seized written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and
appeal set out in sections 25 and 30;
|
a) donne au saisi, dans le
cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou exportés autrement que par
courrier, un avis écrit de la saisie et du droit de révision et d’appel
établi aux articles 25 et 30;
|
|
(b)
if they were imported or exported as mail and the address of the exporter is
known, give the exporter written notice of the seizure and of the right to
review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30; and
|
b) donne à l’exportateur,
dans le cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou exportés par courrier
et son adresse est connue, un avis écrit de la saisie et du droit de révision
et d’appel établi aux articles 25 et 30;
|
|
(c)
take the measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to give notice of
the seizure to any person whom the officer believes on reasonable grounds is
entitled to make an application under section 32 in respect of the
currency or monetary instruments.
|
c) prend les mesures
convenables, eu égard aux circonstances, pour aviser de la saisie toute
personne dont il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu’elle est recevable à
présenter, à l’égard des espèces ou effets saisis, la requête visée à
l’article 32.
|
|
Power to call in aid
19. An officer may call on other
persons to assist the officer in exercising any power of search, seizure or
retention that the officer is authorized under this Part to exercise, and any
person so called on is authorized to exercise the power.
|
Main-forte
19. L’agent peut requérir main-forte
pour se faire assister dans l’exercice des pouvoirs de fouille, de rétention
ou de saisie que lui confère la présente partie. Toute personne ainsi requise
est autorisée à exercer ces pouvoirs.
|
|
Recording of
reasons for decision
19.1
If an officer decides to exercise powers under subsection 18(1), the
officer shall record in writing reasons for the decision.
. .
.
|
Enregistrement
des motifs
19.1
L’agent qui décide d’exercer les attributions conférées par le
paragraphe 18(1) est tenu de consigner par écrit les motifs à l’appui de
sa décision.
[…]
|
|
When
forfeiture under s. 14(5)
22.
(1) An officer who retains currency or monetary instruments forfeited under
subsection 14(5) shall send the currency or monetary instruments to the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
|
Confiscation aux termes du paragraphe
14(5)
22.
(1) En cas de confiscation aux termes du
paragraphe 14(5) des espèces ou effets retenus, l’agent les remet au ministre
des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
|
|
(2)
An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments or is paid a penalty
under subsection 18(2) shall send the currency or monetary instruments or the
penalty, as the case may be, to the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
|
(2)
En cas de saisie d’espèces ou d’effets ou de paiement d’une pénalité réglementaire
aux termes du paragraphe 18(2), l’agent les remet au ministre des Travaux
publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
|
|
Time
of forfeiture
23.
Subject to subsection 18(2) and sections 25 to 31, currency or monetary
instruments seized as forfeit under subsection 18(1) are forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of Canada from the time of the contravention of subsection
12(1) in respect of which they were seized, and no act or proceeding after
the forfeiture is necessary to effect the forfeiture.
|
Moment
de la confiscation
23.
Sous réserve du paragraphe 18(2) et des articles 25 à 31, les espèces ou
effets saisis en application du paragraphe 18(1) sont confisqués au profit de
Sa Majesté du chef du Canada à compter de la contravention au paragraphe
12(1) qui a motivé la saisie. La confiscation produit dès lors son plein
effet et n’est assujettie à aucune autre formalité.
|
|
Review
of forfeiture
24.
The forfeiture of currency or monetary instruments seized under this Part is
final and is not subject to review or to be set aside or otherwise dealt with
except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 25 to 30.
|
Conditions
de révision
24.
La confiscation d’espèces ou d’effets saisis en vertu de la présente partie
est définitive et n’est susceptible de révision, de rejet ou de toute autre
forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux
articles 25 à 30.
|
|
Request
for Minister's decision
25. A person from
whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under section 18, or the
lawful owner of the currency or monetary instruments, may within 90 days
after the date of the seizure request a decision of the Minister as to
whether subsection 12(1) was contravened, by giving notice in writing to the
officer who seized the currency or monetary instruments or to an officer at
the customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place.
|
Demande
de révision
25.
La personne entre les mains de qui ont été saisis des espèces ou effets en
vertu de l’article 18 ou leur propriétaire légitime peut, dans les
quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la saisie, demander au ministre de décider
s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1) en donnant un avis écrit à
l’agent qui les a saisis ou à un agent du bureau de douane le plus proche du
lieu de la saisie.
|
|
Notice
of President
26.
(1) If a decision of the Minister is requested under section 25, the
President shall without delay serve on the person who requested it written
notice of the circumstances of the seizure in respect of which the decision
is requested.
|
Signification
du président
26.
(1) Le président signifie sans délai par
écrit à la personne qui a présenté la demande visée à l’article 25 un
avis exposant les circonstances de la saisie à l’origine de la demande.
|
|
(2)
The person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) may, within
30 days after the notice is served, furnish any evidence in the matter
that they desire to furnish.
|
(2)
Le demandeur dispose de trente jours à compter de la signification de
l’avis pour produire tous moyens de preuve à l’appui de ses prétentions.
|
|
Decision of the Minister
27. (1) Within 90 days after the expiry
of the period referred to in subsection 26(2), the Minister shall decide
whether subsection 12(1) was contravened.
|
Décision du ministre
27. (1)
Dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours qui suivent l’expiration du délai
mentionné au paragraphe 26(2), le ministre décide s’il y a eu contravention
au paragraphe 12(1).
|
|
(2) If charges are
laid with respect to a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity
financing offence in respect of the currency or monetary instruments seized,
the Minister may defer making a decision but shall make it in any case no
later than 30 days after the conclusion of all court proceedings in
respect of those charges.
|
(2)
Dans le cas où des poursuites pour infraction de recyclage des produits de la
criminalité ou pour infraction de financement des activités terroristes ont
été intentées relativement aux espèces ou effets saisis, le ministre peut
reporter la décision, mais celle-ci doit être prise dans les trente jours
suivant l’issue des poursuites.
|
|
(3)
The Minister shall, without delay after making a decision, serve on the
person who requested it a written notice of the decision together with the
reasons for it.
|
(3)
Le ministre signifie sans délai par écrit à la personne qui a fait la demande
un avis de la décision, motifs à l’appui.
|
|
If
there is no contravention
28.
If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was not contravened, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall, on being informed of
the Minister’s decision, return the penalty that was paid, or the currency or
monetary instruments or an amount of money equal to their value at the time
of the seizure, as the case may be.
|
Cas
sans contravention
28.
Si le ministre décide qu’il n’y a pas eu de contravention au paragraphe
12(1), le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès
qu’il est informé de la décision du ministre, restitue la valeur de la
pénalité réglementaire, les espèces ou effets ou la valeur de ceux-ci au
moment de la saisie, selon le cas.
|
|
If
there is a contravention
29. (1) If the
Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was contravened, the Minister shall,
subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister may determine,
|
Cas
de contravention
29.
(1) S’il décide qu’il y a eu contravention
au paragraphe 12(1), le ministre, aux conditions qu’il fixe :
|
|
(a) decide that the currency or
monetary instruments or, subject to subsection (2), an amount of money equal
to their value on the day the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services is informed of the decision, be returned, on payment of a penalty in
the prescribed amount or without penalty;
|
a) soit décide de restituer les espèces
ou effets ou, sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la valeur de ceux-ci à la date
où le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux est
informé de la décision, sur réception de la pénalité réglementaire ou sans
pénalité;
|
|
(b)
decide that any penalty or portion of any penalty that was paid under
subsection 18(2) be remitted; or
|
b) soit décide de restituer
tout ou partie de la pénalité versée en application du paragraphe 18(2);
|
|
(c)
subject to any order made under section 33 or 34, confirm that the currency
or monetary instruments are forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.
|
c) soit confirme la
confiscation des espèces ou effets au profit de Sa Majesté du chef du
Canada, sous réserve de toute ordonnance rendue en application des
articles 33 ou 34.
|
|
The
Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to a
decision of the Minister under paragraph (a) or (b) on being
informed of it.
|
Le
ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en
est informé, prend les mesures nécessaires à l’application des alinéas a)
ou b).
|
|
(2)
The total amount paid under paragraph (1)(a) shall, if the currency or
monetary instruments were sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized
Property Management Act, not exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition,
if any, less any costs incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the
currency or monetary instruments.
|
(2)
En cas de vente ou autre forme d’aliénation des espèces ou effets en vertu de
la Loi sur l’administration des biens saisis, le montant de la somme versée
en vertu de l’alinéa (1)a) ne peut être supérieur au produit éventuel
de la vente ou de l’aliénation, duquel sont soustraits les frais afférents
exposés par Sa Majesté; à défaut de produit de l’aliénation, aucun
paiement n’est effectué.
|
|
Appeal
to Federal Court
30.
(1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25
may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the
decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which the person is the
plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant.
|
Cour
fédérale
30.
(1) La personne qui a présenté une demande en
vertu de l’article 25 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant
la communication de la décision, en appeler par voie d’action devant la Cour
fédérale à titre de demandeur, le ministre étant le défendeur.
|
|
(2) The Federal
Courts Act and the rules made under that Act that apply to ordinary actions
apply to actions instituted under subsection (1) except as varied by special
rules made in respect of such actions.
|
(2)
La Loi sur les Cours fédérales et les règles prises aux termes de cette loi
applicables aux actions ordinaires s’appliquent aux actions intentées en
vertu du paragraphe (1), avec les adaptations nécessaires occasionnées par
les règles propres à ces actions.
|
|
(3) The Minister of Public Works and
Government Services shall give effect to the decision of the Court on being
informed of it.
[Emphasis added.]
|
(3) Le ministre des Travaux
publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en a été informé, prend
les mesures nécessaires pour donner effet à la décision de la Cour.
[Je souligne.]
|
Standard of
Review
[6]
The
jurisdiction of the Federal Court under section 30 of the Act is a
question of statutory construction that is reviewable on the correctness
standard. The question of whether the appellant contravened
subsection 12(1) of the Act is a question of mixed fact and law that is
reviewable on the palpable and overriding error standard: Housen v.
Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235.
Jurisdiction of the
Federal Court under Section 30 of the Act
[7]
Section 24
of the Act contains the following privative clause:
|
Review
and Appeal
Review
of forfeiture
24.
The forfeiture of currency or monetary instruments seized under this Part is
final and is not subject to review or to be set aside or otherwise dealt with
except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 25 to 30.
|
Révision
et appel
Conditions
de révision
24.
La confiscation d’espèces ou d’effets saisis en vertu de la présente partie est
définitive et n’est susceptible de révision, de rejet ou de toute autre forme
d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux
articles 25 à 30.
|
[8]
That
section provides that the forfeiture of currency seized may be reviewed by way
of an action under section 30 of the Act. The English version of
section 24 is also very clear on this point.
[9]
The
word "forfeiture" ("confiscation") means, in law, "a
divestiture of specific property without compensation" (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 8th ed. 2004, p. 667). That definition was cited by the Supreme
Court of Canada in R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867 at
paragraph 44, which dealt with the word "forfeiture"
("confiscation") in subsection 72(1) of the Fisheries Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
[10]
Section 30
of the Act, however, provides as follows:
|
Appeal
to Federal Court
30.
(1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25
may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal
the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which the person is
the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant.
|
Cour
fédérale
30.
(1) La personne qui a présenté une demande en vertu de l’article 25
peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la communication de la
décision, en appeler par voie d’action devant la Cour fédérale à titre de
demandeur, le ministre étant le défendeur.
|
|
(2) The Federal Courts Act and the
rules made under that Act that apply to ordinary actions apply to actions
instituted under subsection (1) except as varied by special rules made in
respect of such actions.
|
(2) La Loi sur les Cours fédérales et
les règles prises aux termes de cette loi applicables aux actions ordinaires
s’appliquent aux actions intentées en vertu du paragraphe (1), avec les adaptations
nécessaires occasionnées par les règles propres à ces actions.
|
|
(3)
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to the
decision of the Court on being informed of it.
[Emphasis added.]
|
(3)
Le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en
a été informé, prend les mesures nécessaires pour donner effet à la décision
de la Cour.
[Je souligne.]
|
[11]
That
section allows anyone who has made a request under section 25 to appeal by
way of an action before the Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff,
within 90 days "after being notified of the decision". The Act does
not specify which decision. Subsection 30(1), however, refers to a request
under section 25, which provides as follows:
|
Request
for Minister's decision
25.
A person from whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under
section 18, or the lawful owner of the currency or monetary
instruments, may within 90 days after the date of the seizure request
a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was contravened,
by giving notice in writing to the officer who seized the currency or
monetary instruments or to an officer at the customs office closest to the
place where the seizure took place.
[Emphasis added.]
|
Demande de révision
25.
La personne entre les mains de qui ont été saisis des espèces ou effets en
vertu de l’article 18 ou leur propriétaire légitime peut, dans les
quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la saisie, demander au ministre de décider
s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1) en donnant un avis écrit à
l’agent qui les a saisis ou à un agent du bureau de douane le plus proche du
lieu de la saisie.
[Je souligne.]
|
[12]
Section
25 refers to the decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1)
of the Act was contravened. It is therefore that decision that is at issue in
subsection 30(1). The Minister makes that decision under section 27
of the Act, which provides:
|
Decision
of the Minister
27.
(1) Within 90 days after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection
26(2), the Minister shall decide whether subsection 12(1) was contravened.
|
Décision
du ministre
27.
(1) Dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours qui suivent l’expiration du délai
mentionné au paragraphe 26(2), le ministre décide s’il y a eu contravention
au paragraphe 12(1).
|
|
(2)
If charges are laid with respect to a money laundering offence or a terrorist
activity financing offence in respect of the currency or monetary instruments
seized, the Minister may defer making a decision but shall make it in any
case no later than 30 days after the conclusion of all court proceedings
in respect of those charges.
|
(2)
Dans le cas où des poursuites pour infraction de recyclage des produits de la
criminalité ou pour infraction de financement des activités terroristes ont
été intentées relativement aux espèces ou effets saisis, le ministre peut
reporter la décision, mais celle-ci doit être prise dans les trente jours
suivant l’issue des poursuites.
|
|
(3)
The Minister shall, without delay after making a decision, serve
on the person who requested it a written notice of the decision together
with the reasons for it.
[Emphasis added.]
|
(3)
Le ministre signifie sans délai par écrit à la personne qui a fait la
demande un avis de la décision, motifs à l’appui.
[Je souligne.]
|
[13]
There
is no doubt that the action that may be brought relates to the decision made by
the Minister under section 27.
[14]
If
the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) of the Act was contravened, the
Minister must then, on his own initiative, make another decision.
Section 29 provides as follows:
|
If
there is a contravention
29.
(1) If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was contravened, the
Minister shall, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister may
determine,
|
Cas
de contravention
29.
(1) S’il décide qu’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), le
ministre, aux conditions qu’il fixe :
|
|
(a)
decide that the currency or monetary instruments or, subject to subsection
(2), an amount of money equal to their value on the day the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services is informed of the decision, be
returned, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount or without
penalty;
|
a) soit décide de restituer
les espèces ou effets ou, sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la valeur de
ceux-ci à la date où le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services
gouvernementaux est informé de la décision, sur réception de la pénalité
réglementaire ou sans pénalité;
|
|
(c)
subject to any order made under section 33 or 34, confirm that the currency
or monetary instruments are forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.
|
c) soit confirme la
confiscation des espèces ou effets au profit de Sa Majesté du chef du
Canada, sous réserve de toute ordonnance rendue en application des
articles 33 ou 34.
|
|
The
Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to a
decision of the Minister under paragraph (a) or (b) on being
informed of it.
|
Le
ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en
est informé, prend les mesures nécessaires à l’application des alinéas a)
ou b).
|
|
(2)
The total amount paid under paragraph (1)(a) shall, if the currency or
monetary instruments were sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized
Property Management Act, not exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition,
if any, less any costs incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the currency or
monetary instruments.
[Emphasis added.]
|
(2)
En cas de vente ou autre forme d’aliénation des espèces ou effets en vertu de
la Loi sur l’administration des biens saisis, le montant de la somme versée
en vertu de l’alinéa (1)a) ne peut être supérieur au produit éventuel
de la vente ou de l’aliénation, duquel sont soustraits les frais afférents
exposés par Sa Majesté; à défaut de produit de l’aliénation, aucun paiement
n’est effectué.
[Je souligne.]
|
[15]
Is
this second decision also covered by section 30?
[16]
In
Dokaj v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2005 FC
1437, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1783 (QL), Layden-Stevenson J.
answered this question in the negative. She stated, at paragraphs 35 and 37:
|
[35]
The decisions of the Minister pursuant to sections 27 and 29 are
discrete decisions. One deals with contravention; the other deals with
penalty and forfeit. Section 27 stipulates that the Minister shall decide
whether subsection 12(1), i.e. the requirement to report, was contravened.
The wording is unequivocal and leaves no room for doubt. Section 29
provides that, in circumstances where the Minister determines that there was
a failure to report, the Minister is to review the quantum of the sanction
imposed by the customs official under subsection 18(2), i.e. full forfeiture
or a penalty ranging from $250 to $5,000. The Minister will either confirm
the customs official's determination with respect to sanction or reduce it to
some lesser penalty.
|
[35] Les décisions rendues par
le ministre en application des articles 27 et 29 sont des décisions
distinctes. L’une a trait à la contravention, tandis que l’autre porte sur la
pénalité et la confiscation. L’article 27 énonce que le ministre doit
décider s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1),
c’est-à-dire à l’obligation de déclarer les espèces ou effets. Le libellé est
non équivoque et ne laisse aucun doute quant à sa signification. L’article 29
prévoit que, dans le cas où le ministre détermine que la personne a négligé
de faire la déclaration requise, le ministre doit décider si le montant de la
pénalité imposée par l’agent des douanes en application du paragraphe 18(2)
était approprié, à savoir la confiscation entière des espèces ou une pénalité
allant de 250 à 5 000 $. Le ministre peut confirmer la décision de
l’agent des douanes eu égard à la pénalité ou ordonner la restitution d’une
partie plus ou moins importante de celle-ci.
|
|
. .
.
|
[…]
|
|
[37]
There is no ambiguity in the language. The Act authorizes
an appeal in relation to a decision of the Minister under section 25.
Section 25 relates only to a decision as to whether
subsection 12(1) was contravened (the provision that imposes the
obligation to report). It necessarily follows that the references to "a
decision" and "the decision" in subsection 30(1) refer to the
Minister's determination under section 27 of the Act. In my view, it
cannot reasonably be construed in any other way. Consequently, the Federal
Court's jurisdiction, pursuant to section 30 of the Act, is limited to
reviewing the decision under section 27 of the Act. That decision is
with respect to whether or not there was a contravention of the Act under
subsection 12(1).
|
[37]
Le libellé des dispositions est clair. La Loi
permet d’interjeter appel de la décision du ministre fondée sur
l’article 25. Cet article vise uniquement une décision sur la question
de savoir s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), qui énonce
l’obligation de faire une déclaration. Il s’ensuit que les termes « une
demande » et « la décision » employés à l’article 30 renvoient à la décision du ministre en
application de l’article 27. À mon avis, il s’agit de la seule
interprétation raisonnable. La compétence de la Cour fédérale en vertu de
l’article 30 de la Loi est donc restreinte à la révision de la décision
rendue en application de l’article 27 de la Loi. Cette décision vise à
déterminer s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1).
|
[17]
I
am of the same opinion. The distinction she made between a decision under
section 27 (the contravention or report) and a decision under
section 29 (the penalty and forfeiture) is, as she demonstrated, based on
the case law of this Court dealing with the seizure review and appeal mechanism
provided for in the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), a mechanism
similar to what is found in the Act (see Time Data Recorder International
Ltd v. M.N.R., [1997] F.C.J. No. 475 (C.A.)(QL), affirming [1993]
F.C.J. No. 768 (T.D.)(QL); Nerguizian v. M.N.R., [1996] F.C.J. No. 866
(T.D.)(QL); He v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. No. 93 (T.D.)(QL).
[18]
Accordingly,
any decision relating to a penalty and seizure cannot be challenged by way of
an action under section 30 of the Act. The appropriate remedy is an
application for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
[19]
The respondent drew our attention to the Act to amend the
Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act
and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, S.C. 2006,
c. 12, sections 14 and 16 of which, inter alia, came into force on
February 10, 2007 (Order in Council P.C. 2007-0142 (Registration SI/20-07-18)).
Those amendments are not effective retroactively and are not relevant for the
purposes of this appeal. It is not for the Court, in the context of this case,
to make pronouncements on the effect of the amendments for the future. This
Court commented on them in Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
v. Pham, 2007 FCA 141, [2007] F.C.J. No. 496 (QL) (see paragraph 23).
Subsection 12(1) of
the Act
[20]
The
appellant argues that he has not contravened subsection 12(1) of the Act.
He says, and customs officer J.C. Prémont acknowledged at the hearing before
the trial judge, that he had signed a declaration before leaving the airport in
the early hours of July 6, 2003.
[21]
The
trial judge clearly took note of that statement. He nonetheless held that the
form signed by Mr. Tourki did not constitute a report under
subsection 12(1) of the Act. It was too late to do so, because he was
sitting on a plane on the tarmac when he was intercepted.
[22]
The
trial judge did not err in deciding that the Minister was correct in
determining that the appellant had contravened subsection 12(1) of the
Act.
Connection
between a Forfeiture and a Declaration
[23]
One
of the objects of the Act is to require the reporting of suspicious financial
transactions and of cross-border movements of currency and monetary instruments
(subparagraph 3(a)(ii)). As Layden-Stevenson J. explained at
paragraph 26 of her reasons, the implementation of those objectives is
achieved through Part 2 of the Act which requires that importers and exporters
make a report to a customs official whenever they import or export large
quantities of currency or monetary instruments into or out of Canada. The
reporting requirement is the cornerstone of the system established for
monitoring cross-border movements.
[24]
It
is therefore important to note that a review of the Minister's decision,
regarding both the contravention and the penalty or forfeiture, is necessarily
initiated by a request under section 25 of the Act. It is also important
to note that subsection 26(2), which is related to the request under
section 25, is the only section of the Act that gives the person
whose property has been seized an opportunity to offer evidence regarding both
the contravention and the forfeiture.
[25]
Sections
18 to 20 of the Act are under the heading Seizures. The Act provides
that if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that
subsection 12(1) has been contravened, the officer may seize as forfeit
the currency or monetary instruments (subsection 18(1) of the Act). An
officer who decides to exercise the powers provided for in subsection 18(1)
is required to record in writing reasons for the decision (section 19.1 of
the Act). An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments under
subsection 18(1) of the Act must give the person from whom they were
seized written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and appeal set
out in sections 25 and 30 of the Act (subsection 18(3) of the Act). The
officer shall, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, return the
seized currency or monetary instruments to the individual from whom they were
seized unless the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the
currency or monetary instruments are proceeds of crime within the meaning of
subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or funds for use in the
financing of terrorist activities (subsection 18(2) of the Act). If the currency or monetary instruments
have been seized under section 18, the officer who seized them shall
without delay report the circumstances of the seizure to the President of the
Canada Border Services Agency and to the Financial Transactions and Reports
Analysis Centre of Canada (section 20).
[26]
Under
the heading Forfeiture, section 23 of the Act provides that subject
to subsection 18(2) and sections 25 to 31, currency or monetary
instruments seized as forfeit under subsection 18(1) are forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of Canada from the time of the contravention of
subsection 12(1) in respect of which they were seized. No act or
proceeding after the forfeiture is necessary to effect the forfeiture (section 23
of the Act).
[27]
The
Act then provides, under the heading Review and Appeal, that the
forfeiture is final and is not subject to review except to the extent and in
the manner provided for by sections 25 to 30 of the Act (section 24 of the
Act).
[28]
The
Act then provides that a person from whom currency or monetary instruments were
seized, or the lawful owner, may within 90 days after the date of the seizure
request a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was
contravened, by giving notice in writing to the officer who seized the currency
or monetary instruments or to an officer at the customs office closest to the
place where the seizure took place (section 25). If a decision of the
Minister is requested under section 25, the President shall without delay serve
on the person who requested it written notice of the circumstances of the
seizure in respect of which the decision is requested (subsection 26(1)).
The person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) may, within 30
days after the notice is served, furnish any evidence in the matter that
they desire to furnish (subsection 26(2)). The Minister shall decide,
within 90 days after the expiry of the period referred to in
subsection 26(2), whether subsection 12(1) was contravened
(subsection 27(1)). The Minister has more time if criminal charges are
laid (subsection 27(2)). When the time allowed by the Act expires, the
Minister shall, without delay after making a decision, serve on the person who
requested it a written notice of the decision together with the reasons for it
(subsection 27(3)).
[29]
If
the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) of the Act was contravened, the
Minister shall (a) decide that the currency or monetary instruments be returned
(paragraph 29(1)(a)); (b) decide that any penalty or portion of any
penalty that was paid under subsection 18(2) be remitted
(paragraph 29(1)(b)); or (c) confirm that the currency or monetary
instruments are forfeited to Her Majesty in Right of Canada
(paragraph 29(1)(c)). The Act does not require that the Minister
give reasons for the decision, nor does it state the basis on which the
Minister decides. No doubt, however, the Minister has before him the reasons
recorded by the officer who exercised the powers provided for in
subsection 18(1). The Minister also has the evidence offered by the person
from whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under
subsection 26(2).
[30]
The
Minister's decision to confirm the forfeiture makes the forfeiture final,
subject to judicial review as noted earlier.
[31]
In
this case, the Minister's decision under section 27 and section 29
was as follows (A.B. vol. II, p. 273):
[translation]
Decision
After examining all of the circumstances
of the case, I conclude, under section 27 of the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, that the contravention was
validly determined to have occurred and the seizure of the currency was
justified.
Under section 29 of the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the currency
seized is retained as forfeit.
Reasons
Because the currency was not properly
reported to Customs, it was seized as forfeit. Forfeiture of the currency
without conditions for return is in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Forfeiture of Negotiable
Instruments in this Case
[32]
The
appellant argues that the trial judge found that the property seized did not
constitute proceeds of crime.
[33]
At
paragraph 59 of his reasons, Harrington J. added, in obiter:
¶ 59 That being said, in the event that I am wrong and the Minister's
decision to confirm the forfeiture is also the subject of this appeal, I am of
the opinion, based on the evidence at trial, that there are no reasonable
grounds to suspect that the $102,642.33 or any part thereof are the proceeds of
crime within the meaning of Section 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code.
In reaching that opinion, it was not necessary to consider the burden of proof
and the threshold which must be reached before it can be said that suspicions
are supported by reasonable grounds.
[34]
Having
regard to his ruling that any review of the Minister's decision to confirm the
forfeiture had to be done by way of an application for judicial review, the
trial judge did not need to consider the "reasonable grounds to suspect
that…". That was not his role.
Sections 7, 8 and 11(d)
of the Charter
[35]
Before
the trial judge, the appellant challenged the constitutional validity of
sections 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 22 to 29 of the Act, and more specifically: (1)
the duty imposed on an individual under section 12 of the Act to report
money or currency that do not constitute proceeds of crime or are intended to
be used to finance terrorist activities; (2) the right of an officer to seize
as forfeit, on mere suspicion, currency that does not constitute proceeds of
crime or that is not intended to be used to finance terrorist activities; and
(3) the powers to order the seizure and forfeiture of currency solely because
of a failure to report, based on mere suspicion, without further proof of its
origin or illegal destination.
[36]
In
the appellant's submission, section 12 of the Act creates a presumption
whereby unreported currency of a value greater than $10,000 constitutes
proceeds or crime or is intended to be used to finance terrorist activities, so
that the currency may then be seized and forfeited. That presumption is
unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void, in the appellant's
submission, as contrary to sections 8 and 11(d) of the Charter. Its
effect is a reverse onus of proof. As well, it is inconceivable that the right
to declare forfeit should be based on a mere suspicion.
[37]
Before
the trial judge, the appellant also invoked section 7 of the Charter,
referring to R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2
S.C.R. 606. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the
existence of a principle of fundamental justice whereby laws must not so lack
in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate. In this
Court, the appellant submits that the Act creates a presumption that is
abusive, extreme and illogical by using the expressions "proceeds of
crime" and "terrorist financing", which are [translation] “too vague and too
general”.
[38]
Section 8
of the Charter protects reasonable expectations of privacy: Hunter v.
Southam, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145. That provision is intended to protect
individual privacy and is not a constitutional guarantee of property rights: Quebec
(Attorney General) v. Laroche, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708 at paragraph 52.
See also R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 at paragraph 16.
[39]
In
R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495, the Supreme Court of Canada held
that the search and seizure provisions in the Customs Act, which
authorized the search of an individual if a customs officer had
"reasonable grounds for supposing" that the person had prohibited
goods secreted about his or her person, did not violate section 8 of the
Charter. At paragraph 49 of its reasons, the Court explained:
I accept the proposition advanced by the
Crown that the degree of personal privacy reasonably expected at customs is
lower than in most other situations. People do not expect to be able to cross
international borders free from scrutiny. It is commonly accepted that
sovereign states have the right to control both who and what enters their
boundaries. For the general welfare of the nation the state is expected to
perform this role. Without the ability to establish that all persons who seek
to cross its borders and their goods are legally entitled to enter the country,
the state would be precluded from performing this crucially important function.
Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect
to be subject to a screening process. This process will typically require the
production of proper identification and travel documentation and involve a
search process beginning with completion of a declaration of all goods being
brought into the country. Physical searches of luggage and of the person are
accepted aspects of the search process where there are grounds for suspecting
that a person has made a false declaration and is transporting prohibited
goods.
[Emphasis added.]
[40]
The
Supreme Court of Canada has further confirmed, in R. v. Monney, [1999] 1
S.C.R. 652 at paragraph 37, that the reasoning in Simmons applies notwithstanding
the amendments to the Customs Act that authorizes a search on the basis
of reasonable grounds to suspect.
[41]
The
provisions of the Act in question therefore do not violate section 8 of
the Charter. The trial judge did not err in finding that "[p]hysical searches of luggage
and of the person are accepted aspects of that process where they are grounds
for suspecting that a person has made a false declaration or is transporting
prohibited goods" and holding that the provisions in issue are not unreasonable.
[42]
Moreover,
the presumption of innocence guaranteed by section 11(d) of the
Charter applies only to an accused, that is, an individual who is facing
criminal, quasi-criminal or regulatory charges: see, for example, R. v.
Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541 at page 554; Schmidt v. R.,
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 500.
[43]
The
appellant is not an accused. He is not charged with any criminal,
quasi-criminal or regulatory offence. The fact that his conduct may result in
criminal prosecutions does not mean that the forfeiture procedure set out in
the Act can be characterized as a penal proceeding. The appropriate test is the
nature of the proceeding, and not the nature of the act: Martineau v. Canada
(Minister of National Revenue), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737, at paragraph 31. The
seizure and forfeiture process established by the Act is a civil collection
mechanism that is not intended to punish the individual: see Martineau
at paragraphs 22-23; Wigglesworth at page 560.
[44]
Section 11(d)
of the Charter therefore does not come into play. The trial judge did not err
in describing the forfeiture provided for in the Act as civil proceedings
against a thing, not proceedings against a person, and holding that this
provision does not apply because no charge has been laid against Mr. Tourki.
[45]
Section 7
is also not engaged. Even before addressing the issue of whether section 7
rights have been infringed in a manner not in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice, one must first establish that there has been an infringement
of the right to life, liberty and security of the person: Blencoe v. British
Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 at
paragraph 47.
[46]
The
duty to report imposed by the Act and the seizure and forfeiture mechanism it
establishes do not engage the right to life, liberty and security of the
person. The right to life, liberty and security of the person encompass a
person's fundamental life choices, and not purely economic interests or
property rights: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1
S.C.R. 927 at paragraph 95; Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General),
[2003] 1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 45.
[47]
At
paragraph 56 of his reasons, the trial judge concluded that "the law is crystal clear. If
you do not declare, the Customs officer is entitled to forfeit that which
should have been declared. It is as simple as that." It was not necessary
to examine the appellant's argument based on the vagueness of the Act, because
the appellant's situation does not engage section 7.
Conclusion
[48]
I
would dismiss the appeal with costs.
"Alice Desjardins"
"I
agree.
Marc Noël J.A."
"I
agree.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."
Certified
true translation
François
Brunet, LLB, BCL
Email this Content