2018 QCCA 301, 2018 QCCA 301

Cameron c. R. 2018 QCCA 301 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006273-161 (455-01-013635-143) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 22, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH , J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR , J.A. MARK SCHRAGER , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL SCOTT CAMERON Mtre ALEXANDRE CAISSIE (Paquin,Caissie) RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre MAXIME HÉBRARD (Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales) On appeal from a judgment rendered on September 29, 2016 by the Honourable Justice Julie Beauchesne of the Court of Québec, District of Granby.

DESCRIPTION: Defered motion for leave to appeal of an order of forfeiture of an offence-relatedproperty. Clerk: Quentin A. Desrosiers Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault (RC-08) HEARING 11:46 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel.11:47 Arguments of Mtre Caissie.12:02 The hearing is adjourned.12:11 The hearing is resumed. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3.12:12 Conclusion of the hearing. (

s) Quentin A. DesrosiersClerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [1] This is an appeal from an order of forfeiture of an offence-related property, rendered by the Quebec Court, District of Bedford(the Honourable Madam Justice Julie Beauchesne), on September 29, 2016, following the appellant’s guilty plea and conviction forseveral indictable offences: 2016 QCCQ 16375. [2] The facts are not complicated. The police tried to intercept the appellant while he was driving his GMC Sierra 2013 pick-uptruck because of a defective light on the trailer being towed.

A high-speed pursuit ensued with the appellant accelerating to 160 km/houron a provincial road and continuing through the town of Knowlton without slowing down, trying to outdistance the police vehicle. In aneffort to stop the truck, the police placed carpet tacks on the road, to no avail. At one point, the trailer unlatched from the truck andstopped in the middle of the road. The appellant, twice, deliberately and violently rammed a police car with his vehicle. Eventually, thetruck stopped and the appellant fled on foot into the woods. He was later found and arrested.

It was subsequently determined that thetrailer had been stolen. [3] According to the appellant, the judge overemphasized the seriousness of the offences for which he was found guilty, erred in notfinding that the appellant made a living from renovation and construction contracts and thus, needs his truck to work. The judge wouldalso have erred in not taking his criminal record into consideration before ordering the forfeiture as required by the Criminal Code. Inshort, the main issue is whether the forfeiture order is disproportionate in the circumstances. [4] There is no merit to the appeal.

The law is well settled. The forfeiture decision is discretionary and absent an error in principle,failure to consider a relevant factor or an overemphasis on the appropriate factors, appellate courts will not intervene. Further, thesentence imposed is not a relevant factor in determining whether forfeiture would be disproportionate. See R. v. Manning, 2013 SCC 1, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Craig, 2009 SCC 23 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 762; Côté c. Directrice des poursuites criminelles etpénales, 2017 QCCA 1269; R. c. Casey, 2012 QCCA 329; R. v.

Neault, 2011 QCCA 435. [5] Moreover, objectives and principles of sentencing are not applicable to the forfeiture order. The proportionality of the forfeitureorder is limited to three factors: the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and

the criminal record, if any, of the person convicted of the offence: Côté c. Directrice des poursuites criminelles et pénales , 2017 QCCA 1269 , par. 5 . [ 6 ] Here, the offences are very serious and their commission was accompanied by many aggravating factors. The judge was aware that the use of the truck was important for the appellant to earn a living, a fact she did not fail to consider. She was equally aware of alternative means of transport readily available to him in that regard.

Finally, it is difficult to understand how consideration of his criminal record could be of assistance to the appellant since it reveals drug and other vehicle-related offences. [ 7 ] In sum, considering the exacting standard of appellate review, there is no justification for this Court to intervene. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 8 ] GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the appeal. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. MARK SCHRAGER, J.A.