Criminal Code of Canada - section 320(2) - Summons to occupier

section 320(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section requires a judge to issue a summons to the occupier of premises to appear in court and show cause as to why seized matter should not be forfeited to the government.

SECTION WORDING

320(2) Within seven days of the issue of a warrant under subsection (1), the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises requiring him to appear before the court and show cause why the matter seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty.

EXPLANATION

Section 320(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada stipulates the proceedings that must take place within seven days of the issue of a warrant under subsection (1). The judge who issued the warrant must also issue a summons to the occupier of the premises, which requires them to appear in court and explain why the matter seized during the search should not be forfeited to Her Majesty. The matter being referred to in this section refers to items that were seized during a search, which the Crown believes is evidence of a crime or was acquired through the proceeds of a crime. For example, if the police execute a search warrant and discover illegal drugs on the property, the drugs would be considered to be the matter. It is the responsibility of the occupier of the premises to attend court and provide an explanation as to why the matter seized should not be forfeited to the Crown. The occupier is entitled to legal representation while making this argument. The purpose of this section is to provide an opportunity for the occupier of the premises to argue against the forfeiture of the matter by the Crown. It provides transparency and fairness to the process of seizing potentially incriminating items. If a sufficient argument is established, it will prevent the Crown from claiming ownership of the item, and it will be returned to the occupier of the premises. However, if no such argument is presented, the item may be declared forfeited to Her Majesty.

COMMENTARY

Section 320(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedure to be followed in cases where a judge has issued a warrant for the seizure of property believed to be connected to criminal activities. This section highlights the importance of due process in the application of the law, providing safeguards against arbitrary or capricious seizures. The section requires that within seven days of issuing a warrant, the judge must issue a summons to the occupier of the premises seized. The summons requires the occupier to appear before the court to show cause why the property seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty. This process ensures that the person whose property has been seized has an opportunity to challenge the seizure and prove that the property should not be forfeited. The requirement for a summons is a significant procedural protection. Absent such a requirement, the government could

STRATEGY

Section 320(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that outlines the procedure that must be followed by the judge when a warrant is issued for the seizure of property that is believed to be related to a criminal offence. This provision provides an opportunity for the occupier of the premises to appear before the court and show cause why the matter seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty. When dealing with section 320(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that should be taken into account. Firstly, it is important to understand the nature of the offence that led to the issuance of the warrant. Depending on the circumstances, there may be different strategies that can be employed to challenge the forfeiture of the property. For example, if the warrant was issued as part of an investigation into drug-related offences, the occupier of the premises may argue that the drugs were intended for personal use only, and not for distribution. Alternatively, the occupier may argue that the drugs were planted by someone else, or that they were unaware of their presence on the premises. Another important consideration is the strength of the evidence that led to the issuance of the warrant. If the warrant was based on unreliable or insufficient evidence, the occupier may be able to argue that the seizure of the property was unconstitutional. In such cases, it may be necessary to challenge the warrant itself, and seek to have it declared invalid. Apart from challenging the seizure of the property on constitutional or evidentiary grounds, other strategies that could be employed include negotiating with the Crown for a reduced penalty, or seeking to have the seized property returned under certain conditions. For instance, the occupier may agree to undertake certain measures to ensure that the property is not used for illegal purposes in the future, or to forfeit the property to a charity or non-profit organization. In some cases, it may also be possible to challenge the constitutionality of section 320(2) itself, particularly if it is believed to be overly broad or vague. For example, it may be argued that the section violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing for the forfeiture of property without adequate safeguards or due process. In sum, section 320(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that requires careful consideration when dealing with matters related to the seizure and forfeiture of property. By understanding the nature of the offence, the strength of the evidence, and the available strategies and options, it may be possible to challenge the forfeiture of the property or negotiate a more favorable outcome.