ALBERTA (JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL) v BASSETT, 2019 ABQB 759
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.2: Application for judgment
An investigation resulted in criminal charges against Bassett for trafficking drugs. The police also seized an amount of cash. An ex parte civil restraint Order was granted against Bassett and his partner Andrus to restrain cash which had been seized during the criminal investigation. Bassett and Andrus made an Application to revoke the civil restraint Order (the “Revocation Application”). In response, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta (the “Minister”) applied to have the Revocation Application struck or stayed pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Minister also sought Summary Judgment under Rule 7.2.
Justice Labrenz assessed the Revocation Application by Bassett separately from the Revocation Application by Andrus. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) issues Bassett had raised were previously decided against him in his criminal trial. The Court found that Bassett’s Revocation Application was an abuse of process and the Court struck the Application under Rule 3.68(1)(d). As Bassett has no further argument available, Justice Labrenz also issued Summary Judgment against Bassett pursuant to Rule 7.2.
Justice Labrenz next considered Andrus’ Revocation Application. Andrus retained both an independent claim to money and an independent privacy right to assert against the search. As section 8 of the Charter protects the privacy of individuals, and not the privacy of places or things, the Court determined that Andrus could raise her own Charter issue in the civil proceedings. Justice Labrenz refused to strike the Revocation Application under Rule 3.68 as against Andrus. The Court then turned to whether Summary Judgment should be granted against Andrus. Justice Labrenz found there were genuine, triable issues raised by Andrus’ Charter challenge which had not been previously raised. Therefore, Justice Labrenz determined that the issues had merit and that Summary Judgment would not be appropriate. The Court dismissed the Minister’s Application for Summary Judgment against Andrus.View CanLII Details