Rutherford v. Royal Bank of Canada

necessary to discuss here under what state of facts or cir- RuTERORD cumstances a customer of the bank might be relieved from the ordinary effect of such a release."

THoE

*Oct. 16.

*Dec.

INFORMATION THE ATTORNEY-GEN-- APPELLANT; CANADA

(PLAINTIFF) ..........

AND

MAX KRAKOWEC, DAHLBERG AND

EKLUND

AND

CONTINENTAL

GUARANTY

CORPORATION

OF (

CANADA, LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER OF Revenue-Criminal law-Conditional sales-Excise Act, R.S.C., c. 60-Forfeiture of vehicle under s. 181-Legal owners having no notice or knowledge of illegal use-Penal statutes-Construction. A vehicle, otherwise undisputably liable to forfeiture under s. of the Excise Act, R.S.C., 1927, c. 60, is (on construction of s. and the Act as a whole) to be held so liable notwithstanding that its legal owner had, prior to seizure, no notice or knowledge of the illegal use which was being made of it.

Even a penal statute must not be construed so as to narrow its words to the exclusion of cases which those words in their ordinary acceptation would comprehend (Dyke v. Elliott; The " Gauntlett," L.R. 4 P.C. 184, at 191; Craies on Statute Law, 3rd ed., p. 444).

A truck in the possession and use of its purchaser under a conditional sale agreement, by which the property in and title to it remained in the vendors until payment in full and on which a balance remained unpaid, was seized under circumstances which, as held on facts admitted, must be taken to have made it liable to forfeiture to the Crown under said s.

Held that it was liable to forfeiture not only as against the person in whose possession it was seized but also as against the said vendors, although the latter had no notice or knowledge of the illegal use which was being made of it.

The court is not vested under s. 124 of the Act with any discretionary power in the matter. It must decide according to law.

*Present at hearing of the appeal:

Anglin CJ.C. and Newcombe, Rinfret, Smith and Cannon JJ. Newcombe J. took no part in the judgment, having died before the delivery thereof.

APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of Audette J., of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1), dismissing the action and ordering that the seizure in question be set aside and annulled and that the vehicle in question be released to the owners to be dealt with under the contract between the vendors and purchaser thereof. The material facts of the case and the questions in issue are sufficiently stated in the judgment now reported and are indicated in the above head-note. The appeal to this Court was allowed with costs.

J.-In this case, the information of the Attorney-General of Canada sheweth that on or about the 5th day of December, 1929, at Albertville, in the province of Saskatchewan, one S. A. Bovan, an officer of His Majesty's Excise of Canada, under the authority of a writ of assistance and in accord with the provisions of section 181 of the Excise Act, did seize as having become subject to forfeiture to His Majesty a certain vehicle, to wit: a one-and-a-half ton Fargo Express, Serial No. 283531, Engine No. KT1690, covered by Saskatchewan Licence 1929 No. T-18-678; that, at the time of such seizure, the said vehicle was being used by one Max Krakowec for the purpose of removing spirits in his possession unlawfully manufactured contrary to the provisions of the said section 181; and that, on the 5th day of December, 1929, before John Ashby and John Rosser, two of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the S.C.R.]