The applicant sought forfeiture of sale proceeds from a property used for a large marijuana grow operation under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.
The central issue was whether forfeiture would clearly not be in the interest of justice where the owner had separated from the co-respondent before the unlawful activity and denied knowledge or wilful blindness.
The court reviewed evidentiary gaps concerning occupancy, knowledge, and the source and effect of rental payments on mortgage equity, and applied appellate guidance on proportionality and owner conduct.
The court found the owner did not knowingly participate in or profit materially from the unlawful activity and that full forfeiture would be harsh and inequitable.
The application was dismissed.
