Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: Use this plan when a client's assets have been seized under a special warrant or subjected to a restraint order under the federal proceeds of crime regime in Part XII.2 of the Criminal Code RSC 1985 c C-46, or when a sentencing court is considering a forfeiture order under s 462.37, a fine in lieu of forfeiture under s 462.37(3), or an enterprise forfeiture order under s 462.37(2.01). The plan covers the full defence lifecycle from pre-trial restraint variation through to post-conviction forfeiture mitigation, including the Rafilovich shield for legal fees.
Jurisdiction: Federal - Part XII.2 Criminal Code RSC 1985 c C-46 (ss 462.3-462.5). Forks cover pre-trial restraint and variation applications (s 462.33-462.35), post-stay forfeiture applications under R v Nguyen 2026 SCC 10, third-party interest claims under s 462.42, and parallel provincial civil forfeiture proceedings under Ontario's Civil Remedies Act 2001 and BC's Civil Forfeiture Act.
The Process at a Glance: Upon seizure or service of a restraint order, counsel immediately assesses the 6-month detention limitation under s 462.35(1) and prepares a variation application under s 462.34 to release assets for living expenses, business expenses, or legal fees. The legal fees application requires an in camera hearing under s 462.34(5) where the AG is excluded. At sentencing, counsel contests the Crown's forfeiture application under s 462.37, challenges the enterprise threshold under s 462.37(2.01), and invokes the Rafilovich shield (R v Rafilovich 2019 SCC 51) to protect funds already released for legal expenses from being recaptured as a fine in lieu of forfeiture. If criminal proceedings are stayed, counsel transitions to post-stay forfeiture proceedings under s 490 (seized property) or s 462.43 (restrained property), applying the Nguyen (2026 SCC 10) framework.
Use this fork when the client's primary immediate need is to access restrained assets for living expenses, business continuity, or legal fees, and when counsel must monitor the 6-month detention limit to force the Crown's hand. This deep-dive fork focuses exclusively on the pre-trial restraint variation and detention monitoring workflow under ss 462.33-462.35 of the Criminal Code.
Defence workflow for post-stay asset forfeiture following R v Nguyen 2026 SCC 10. Covers Charter s.11(b) delay stays and return of seized property motions.
Use this fork when the client is an innocent third party - a spouse, landlord, secured creditor, mortgage holder, business partner, or other person with a proprietary or security interest - whose property has been forfeited to the Crown in a criminal forfeiture proceeding under s 462.37 of the Criminal Code, and who wants to recover their interest through the s 462.42 third-party claim process.
Use this fork when the client faces parallel provincial civil forfeiture proceedings alongside or following federal criminal proceedings, specifically under Ontario's Civil Remedies Act 2001 (CRA) or British Columbia's Civil Forfeiture Act (CFA). The civil forfeiture regime is in rem - it operates against the property itself - and functions independently of the criminal case. An acquittal or stayed charge is no bar to civil forfeiture, because the civil standard is only balance of probabilities. A respondent who is acquitted in criminal court can still have their property forfeited in civil proceedings.
Key Legislation and Case Law: Criminal Code Part XII.2 - Justice Laws - key provisions: s 462.31 (money laundering - 10 years indictable, 14 years if criminal organization connection), s 462.33 (ex parte restraint orders, nationwide effect, s 462.33(9) registration on real property title), s 462.34 (variation - living expenses, business expenses, legal fees, bail; 2 clear days notice to AG; in camera hearing for legal fees under s 462.34(5)), s 462.35 (6-month detention limit; extension application under s 462.35(3)), s 462.36 (clerk forwards records to trial court), s 462.37(1) (mandatory forfeiture - direct proceeds, balance of probabilities), s 462.37(2) (discretionary forfeiture - indirect proceeds, beyond reasonable doubt), s 462.37(2.01) (enterprise forfeiture - criminal organizations, CDSA/Cannabis Act indictables, human trafficking; pattern of criminal activity in last 10 years or unexplained wealth), s 462.37(2.03) (burden shifts to offender under enterprise threshold), s 462.37(3) (fine in lieu of forfeiture - 5 unavailability criteria), s 462.37(4) (mandatory consecutive imprisonment for default), s 462.42 (third-party interest claims - 30-day deadline, innocence and no-collusion test), s 462.43 (disposition of restrained property post-stay), s 490 (disposition of seized property), s 490(9) (post-stay forfeiture - 3-part test). R v Rafilovich 2019 SCC 51 - sentencing judges should generally not impose fine in lieu of forfeiture on funds judicially released for legal expenses; Rafilovich shield protects the constitutional right to counsel. R v Nguyen 2026 SCC 10 - trial-tied forfeiture provisions (ss 462.37, 491.1, CDSA s 16) lose jurisdiction upon stay of proceedings; Crown must use s 490(9) (seized property) or s 462.43 (restrained property) post-stay; s 490(9) requires 3-part test: property no longer required for trial, unlawfulness of possession proven beyond reasonable doubt, no other known lawful claimants. Fine in lieu default imprisonment: under $10,000 up to 6 months; $10,001-$20,000 6-12 months; $20,001-$50,000 12-18 months; $50,001-$100,000 18 months-2 years; $100,001-$250,000 2-3 years; $250,001-$1,000,000 3-5 years; over $1,000,000 5-10 years; all consecutive to any other sentence.
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Proceeds of Crime and Asset Forfeiture (Respondent) matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for Criminal Law cases, outlining the standard Litigation process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.