Desjardins J.A.:
The appellant has not satisfied us that the Trial Judge made any error which would warrant our intervention.
It is clear that there were no criminal charges against the appellant under subsection 88.2(2) of the Excise Act! (the Act), so contrary to his submissions, the presumption of innocence under paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms* and paragraph 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights? does not apply here.
To be entitled to an order that the appellant’s interest as owner of the seized vehicle was not affected, it had to be made to appear to the Trial Judge’s satisfaction that the appellant was innocent of any complicity in the offence resulting in the seizure and that he exercised all reasonable care to satisfy himself that the seized vehicle was not likely to be used contrary to the Act.
As it was not so made to appear, the Trial Judge was justified in deciding as he did.
The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content