2 total
Forfeiture denied where full seizure would be harsh and inequitable.
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.
Appeal from conviction for possession of counterfeit money dismissed; inconsistent statements supported inference of knowledge.
The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of counterfeit money.
She argued the trial judge erred in inferring she knew the bills were counterfeit.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant gave two inconsistent stories when confronted, and to use those inconsistent statements to infer knowledge that the bills were counterfeit.
