Editorâs Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by rc dot xyz NFT gallery on Unsplash.
đ¸ On Friday, April 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in His Majesty the King v. Thi Huyen Nguyen, et al. At issue is whether the Crown can pursue forfeiture of seized property after criminal proceedings against the property holders have been stayed. Specifically, the Court is set to decide whether property targeted under s. 462.37(2) of the Criminal Code and s. 16(2) of the CDSA must be related to the offence for which there was a conviction, and whether a stay of proceedings bars the prosecution from proving the facts underlying the stayed charges in a forfeiture hearing.
đŻ On April 10, 2026, the SCC released its decision in Riddle v. ivari, 2026 SCC 9. In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurerâs failure to serve the annulment proceeding on the person declared dead did not invalidate the proceeding, and that under Quebec law, a person declared dead can âreturnâ through sufficiently current evidence that they are alive, even without physically returning to Quebec.
đ¤ 87% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result. The SCCbot got it right.
đŽ Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this weekâs decision. Scroll down for details on this weekâs case or a recap of last weekâs judgment.
Case to Predict: When Can the Crown Seek Forfeiture After a Stay?
Appeal by leave from Nguyen c. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, 2024 QCCA 674
SCC webcast đĽ | factums đ
What Happened?
This case arises out of a police investigation into a family-run cannabis production network in Montreal. Eleven people were charged under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. During the investigation, police seized or blocked money, bank accounts, and real property in Quebec and British Columbia linked to the respondents.
One co-accused, Manh Hung Nguyen, pleaded guilty in 2016 to a cannabis production count and received a 12-month sentence. But in 2017, the proceedings against these respondents and several other co-accused were stayed for unreasonable delay, and that stay was upheld on appeal. After that, the Crown still sought forfeiture of the respondentsâ seized properties and funds under ss. 462.37(2) and 491.1 of the Criminal Code and s. 16(2) of the CDSA. The Court of QuĂŠbec held that it had jurisdiction to hear the forfeiture application, but the Quebec Court of Appeal disagreed and held that it did not.
The Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture provisions relied on by the Crown require proven criminality and cannot be used here to proceed against these respondents after the stay. It said the single guilty plea by another co-accused could not support forfeiture of property unrelated to the offence covered by that plea, and that the stay foreclosed any future proof of criminal liability against the respondents.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: The Crown argues that the Court of Appeal read s. 462.37(2) of the Criminal Code and s. 16(2) of the CDSA too narrowly. In its view, paragraph (2) exists precisely to permit forfeiture of property not directly tied to the offence of conviction, so long as the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is proceeds of crime or offence-related property. The Crown says the co-accusedâs guilty plea supplied the necessary procedural footing, and that the forfeiture hearing is an in rem proceeding, not a criminal trial of the respondents. It also argues that the stay should not prevent it from proving the facts necessary to show the illegal character of the property.
Respondents: The respondents say the Crownâs theory is unprecedented and would let the state use one personâs guilty plea to pursue the property of entirely different people after the charges against them have been permanently stayed. They argue that even under paragraph (2), there must still be a sufficient link between the property and the proof underlying the conviction or discharge that opens the forfeiture regime. In their view, once the proceedings against them were stayed, they were effectively out of the case, and the Crown could not revive the underlying allegations through a forfeiture process. They also say the seizure and blocking orders were merely accessory to the main criminal proceeding and cannot survive on their own once that proceeding is gone.
Intervenor: The Director of Public Prosecutions says there must still be some legal mechanism for courts to deal with seized property after a stay, and that the proper one is the general disposition regime in s. 490 of the Criminal Code. On that view, once proceedings have been stayed and the property is no longer required, a court can still order its return or confiscation under s. 490. Failing that, the intervenor says courts should have a limited common law power to dispose of seized property in the interests of the administration of justice.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
If the Court sides with the Crown, paragraph (2) forfeiture proceedings could become much more powerful in multi-accused cases, especially where one accused pleads guilty but charges against others later collapse. If the Court sides with the respondents, it will reinforce the idea that forfeiture under these provisions remains tightly tied to proven criminality and cannot be used as a substitute for a criminal trial that will never happen. The intervenorâs position gives the Court a middle path.
Based primarily on the questions at the hearing, I’m leaning towards appeal allowed. A few judges seemed to be exploring what the proper process would be to pursue forfeiture, so I could see them providing guidance on s. 490 and sending it back down.
SCCbot
This season, we’re also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. The SCCbot is currently 6 for 7. For this week, the SCCbot is saying appeal allowed. It reasons that the SCC will say the Court of Appeal answered the wrong question: even if the Crownâs broad forfeiture theories under ss. 462.37(2), 16(2), and 491.1 are too ambitious after a stay, the Court of QuĂŠbec still had statutory authority under s. 490 to dispose of seized property. The Court of Appeal itself left the return/disposition mechanism unresolved, which gives the SCC room to restore jurisdiction on that narrower basis.
Previous Case Recap: Riddle v. ivari
Riddle v. ivari, 2026 SCC 9
Held (9:0): Appeal dismissed. The insurerâs failure to serve the annulment application on the person declared dead did not require dismissal, and a person declared dead may âreturnâ for the purposes of Quebec civil law through sufficiently current evidence that they are alive, even without physically returning to Quebec. The applicable standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities.
Key points:
- Service is a fundamental procedural rule, but the consequence of non-service is contextual and depends in part on prejudice and the integrity of the judicial process. Here, the Court found no prejudice that would justify nullity.
- A declaratory judgment of death is a legal fiction, not conclusive proof of death, and it must yield where there is proof that the person is currently alive.
- âReturnâ under arts. 97 et seq. C.C.Q. does not require physical return to Quebec. It can be established by evidence showing the person declared dead is alive somewhere in the world.
- The standard is not certainty. It is the civil standard: balance of probabilities, supported by clear and convincing evidence.
đ 87% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly! SCCbot also got it right.
Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked todayâs newsletter, weâd love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts
-Tom Slade