Criminal Code of Canada - section 83.16(1) - Interim Preservation Rights

section 83.16(1)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Property restrained or seized under a Section 83.13 order will continue to be restrained or detained during any appeal process.

SECTION WORDING

83.16 (1) Pending any appeal of an order made under section 83.14, property restrained under an order issued under section 83.13 shall continue to be restrained, property seized under a warrant issued under that section shall continue to be detained, and any person appointed to manage, control or otherwise deal with that property under that section shall continue in that capacity.

EXPLANATION

Section 83.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to orders and warrants that have been issued under sections 83.13 and 83.14. These sections relate to the restraint and seizure of property, as well as the appointment of a person to manage and control such property, in the context of terrorism offences. In essence, the provision specifies that any property that has been restrained or seized under a section 83.13 order shall continue to be restrained or detained pending any appeal of a section 83.14 order. This means that the property remains frozen and cannot be dealt with or disposed of while the legal process is ongoing. Additionally, any person who has been appointed to manage, control or otherwise deal with the property under a section 83.13 order shall continue to hold that position until the legal process is complete. This ensures that the property remains secure and inaccessible until the matter has been fully resolved. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent persons who have been accused of or convicted of terrorism offences from using their property to finance further illegal activities. By restraining and detaining the property, the government can prevent funds or other resources from being used to support terrorism. Overall, section 83.16(1) reinforces the importance of deterring and preventing terrorism in Canada, by ensuring that those who engage in such activities cannot utilize their resources to continue illegal actions.

COMMENTARY

Section 83.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the restraint and detention of property and individuals under orders issued under sections 83.13 and 83.14 of the Code. These orders relate to the freezing of assets and the imposition of other measures to combat terrorism. The section provides that pending any appeal of an order made under section 83.14, the property restrained under an order issued under section 83.13 shall continue to be restrained, property seized under a warrant issued under that section shall continue to be detained, and any person appointed to manage, control or otherwise deal with that property under that section shall continue in that capacity. The purpose of this provision is to maintain the status quo in relation to the measures taken under sections 83.13 and 83.14 until any appeal process has been completed. This is important as it ensures that the assets and property of suspected terrorists are kept frozen and detained, and that they cannot use such property to finance further terrorist activities. Moreover, it ensures that those individuals who are tasked with managing and controlling such assets are not removed from their positions until the appeal process has been concluded. The provision also serves to prevent the undermining of the judicial process by ensuring that the orders made under sections 83.13 and 83.14 are respected and enforced until any appeal process has been completed. This is important as it ensures that the authorities can take effective measures to combat terrorism, and that terrorist organizations are unable to use their assets to finance further terrorist activities. However, this provision has been subject to criticism by some who argue that it infringes on the rights of individuals and property holders. The freezing of assets and property can have a significant impact on individuals, particularly innocent third parties who may be caught up in the measures taken under sections 83.13 and 83.14. Moreover, the lengthy appeals process can further aggravate the situation, causing undue hardship for many individuals and businesses. Another issue with this provision is that it places a significant burden on law enforcement agencies and the courts, who must ensure that the measures taken under sections 83.13 and 83.14 are effectively enforced pending any appeal process. This can be difficult and time-consuming, particularly in cases where there are multiple parties involved. In summary, while section 83.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision in the fight against terrorism, it should also be considered carefully in light of the possible negative effects it may have on individuals and businesses. It is important to ensure that the measures taken under sections 83.13 and 83.14 are proportional to the threat posed and that any appeals process is conducted in a timely and efficient manner. By doing so, we can strike a balance between protecting our society from the threat of terrorism and respecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

STRATEGY

Section 83.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the continuation of property restraint, detention, and management pending an appeal of an order made under section 83.14. This section of the Criminal Code has significant strategic considerations that need to be taken into account when dealing with it. The first and foremost strategic consideration when dealing with this section is the timely filing of an appeal against the order made under section 83.14. Any delay in filing an appeal may result in prolonged restraint and detention of the property, thereby impacting the financial position of the owner. Therefore, immediate action must be taken to file an appeal against the order under section 83.14. Another critical strategic consideration is the appointment of a competent and experienced person to manage, control, or deal with the property under Section 83.13. This person must have the expertise to handle the seized property while taking into account the legal complexities involved in the management of restrained or detained property. Moreover, this person must remain neutral and not engage in any activities that may raise questions of impropriety that can impact the ongoing legal proceedings. Another effective strategy is to challenge the restraint or detention of the property, arguing that the seizure was unlawful or that property was not within the scope of section 83.13. This can be done by filing a motion to vary or rescind the order under section 83.14. If the court finds that the restraint or detention was unlawful, then the property can be released, and the restriction on the use of restrained or detained property will be lifted. Further, an expedited hearing must be sought to deal with the appeal and any related motions as early as possible. An early hearing will allow the appellant to present their case and reduce the period of restraint or detention. It may also be possible to negotiate a resolution with the Crown before an appeal. It may be beneficial to seek counsel to assist in negotiations and increasing chances of a favourable settlement. Moreover, the appellant must take steps to ensure that the legitimate business operations do not suffer due to the restraint or detention of the property. For instance, if a business that produces goods and services is affected by the restraint or detention of the property, it may lead to unemployment, negative publicity, etc. Hence, plans and measures must be taken to mitigate the impact of the restraint or detention on the business operations. Finally, the appellant must keep themselves informed of any changes to the law and regulations governing the restraint or detention of property. This is because the law and regulations surrounding this section of the Criminal Code may change, and the appellant must take note of these changes to protect the interests of the property. To sum up, dealing with Section 83.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires strategic considerations in terms of timely appeals, appointment of competent personnel, challenging the restraint or detention of the property, seeking an expedited hearing, and mitigating the impact on business operations. The implementation of these strategies will help protect the interests of the appellant and ease the legal proceedings.