section 462.48(9)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

An objection to a forfeiture order must be made within 10 days or within a different timeframe set by the judge.

SECTION WORDING

462.48(9) An application under subsection (7) shall be made within ten days after the objection is made or within such greater or lesser period as the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, or such other judge of that Court as the Chief Justice may designate to hear such applications, considers appropriate.

EXPLANATION

Section 462.48(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with applications made in response to objections raised against the restraint of property. Specifically, this section outlines the time frame within which such applications must be made. If a party contests the seizure or restraint of their property, they may make an application under subsection (7) of the same section. That application must be made within ten days of the objection being raised, or within a different time period that may be deemed appropriate by a designated judge in the Federal Court. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that applications are made in a timely and efficient manner, so as to minimize any delay in resolving disputes over the restraint of property. By setting a clear timeframe within which such applications must be made, it also provides clarity and predictability to the parties involved. Put simply, this provision helps to ensure that the legal system operates fairly and efficiently when it comes to disputes over the restraint of property. Overall, section 462.48(9) is an important provision within the Criminal Code of Canada as it helps to maintain the integrity and fairness of the legal system. By clearly outlining the time frame within which applications must be made, it ensures that disputes over the restraint of property can be resolved in a timely and efficient manner, while also ensuring that all parties involved receive a fair hearing.

COMMENTARY

Section 462.48(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision in the administration of justice in the country, as it sets out the timeline for filing an application seeking forfeiture of property that is the subject of an objection by the owner or claimant. The provision requires that an application for forfeiture under subsection (7) must be made within ten days after the objection is made. It is important to note that it also allows for a greater or lesser period as the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, or such other judge of that Court as the Chief Justice may nominate, considers appropriate. The provision is aimed at ensuring that applications for forfeiture are made promptly and that any objections raised by the owner or claimant of the property are dealt with expediently. It is designed to provide clarity on the timeframes within which parties can act and to prevent undue delays in the administration of justice. In practice, this provision is particularly relevant in cases where the Crown is seeking forfeiture of property believed to be the proceeds of crime. In such cases, the Crown will typically seize the property and initiate proceedings to have it forfeited. If the owner or claimant of the property objects to the forfeiture, they are required to file an objection within a certain time frame. Once an objection has been raised, the Crown is then required to make an application seeking forfeiture of the property, which must be done within the time period outlined in section 462.48(9). Failure to file an application within the prescribed time period may result in the objection being upheld and the property being returned to the owner or claimant. Overall, section 462.48(9) is an important provision that serves to ensure that applications for forfeiture are filed promptly and that objections are dealt with in a timely manner. By providing clear timeframes for parties to act, it helps to prevent undue delays in the administration of justice and ensures that the legal system is fair and efficient for all parties involved.

STRATEGY

Section 462.48(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada places a strict time limit on the filing of an application to contest the forfeiture of a property. The section stipulates that an application must be made within ten days of when an objection is made. Furthermore, the section provides for the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or any judge that he/she may designate to determine the appropriate period for filing such an application. Dealing with this section of the Criminal Code can be challenging, particularly for parties seeking to overturn a forfeiture decision. Below are some strategic considerations and possible strategies that could be employed: 1. Move quickly The strict ten-day timeline for filing an application is demanding. Hence, parties seeking to challenge a forfeiture decision must act swiftly. To increase the chances of success, parties must prioritize prompt action and ensure that they do not miss the deadline. 2. Gather as much information as possible Before filing an application, parties must gather all possible information related to the forfeiture decision. This includes relevant police records, legal arguments and any other relevant documents. The more information that a party has at their disposal, the stronger their case will be. 3. Consider involving a lawyer Section 462.48(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada is complex, and parties may face legal challenges while navigating this process. Therefore, it is essential to consult an experienced lawyer to avoid any potential legal pitfalls. 4. Prioritize the strongest arguments Arguing against forfeiture is challenging. To maximize one's chances of success, parties must focus on their strongest legal arguments. By prioritizing one's strongest arguments, it is possible to sway the court in one's favor. 5. Develop a strong counter-argument Besides presenting strong arguments, parties must develop a strong counter-argument. This means anticipating how the opposition is likely to argue and prepare an effective defense that counters the opposition's argument. 6. Consider alternatives to forfeiture In some cases, it may be in a party's best interest to explore alternatives to forfeiture. This could include negotiating with the authorities and reaching a compromise on the property issue. By doing this, parties may be able to avoid the uncertainty of the court process. In conclusion, dealing with section 462.48(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada demands strategic considerations and calculated decisions. By acting swiftly, gathering sufficient information, prioritizing strong arguments, developing a strong counter-argument and exploring alternative solutions, it is possible to contest a forfeiture decision successfully. Working with an experienced lawyer can also significantly increase one's chances of success.