This case involved the sentencing of poacher of Atlantic salmon. The Court imposed an overall fine of $3,500, a two year fishing prohibition and forfeiture of a boat that was used in the commission of the offence. With respect to the forfeiture order, the Court cited a number of authorities including R v. Smith (1978), 15 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115 for the proposition that "while the court may consider the sentence when exercising its discretion as to whether or not forfeiture is appropriate" (para 29), forfeiture is not part of the sentence (paragraphs 21-9). The Court also stated that in exercising the discretion, forfeiture ought to be imposed "where it is established that but for the vehicle in question, the offence would probably not have been committed" (para. 30).
Editor’s note: For cases taking a contrary approach to the question of whether forfeiture is part of the sentence see: R. v. McNeil, 2007 BCSC 773 (digested here) and R. v. Cox [2007] N.J. No. 71 (digested here) along with the editor’s note in the digest of R. v. Sandover-Sly regarding the test set out in Thomas , Principles of Sentencing (digested here).