James McKeachie

The Attorney General brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act to approve a settlement with the mother of the deceased, whose estate's assets were subject to civil forfeiture proceedings as alleged proceeds of crime.

The mother claimed she had advanced funds to her son to renovate his property and held a promissory note.

The estate trustee opposed the settlement, questioning the legitimacy of the mother's claim.

The court approved the settlement, finding the mother was a legitimate owner and the Attorney General acted reasonably in recognizing her claim, ordering $120,000 paid out of the preserved funds.

Following an unsuccessful civil forfeiture application brought by the provincial Attorney General seeking to retain seized property alleged to be proceeds of crime, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs after recovering seized assets including a large amount of cash, real property, and a motor vehicle.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding was brought in good faith in the public interest.

The court rejected this argument, holding that government litigants pursuing property claims are generally subject to the same cost consequences as private parties.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 against thirteen properties alleged to be proceeds of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and money laundering.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing there were no reasonable and probable grounds, that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the initial ex parte motion, and that continuation of the order was not in the interests of justice.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe that eight of the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime due to unexplained funding gaps, but discharged the order for five properties where legitimate funding sources were demonstrated.

The court dismissed the non-disclosure arguments and found that continuing the preservation order for the eight properties was not clearly against the interests of justice.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order committing him to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry on firearms possession charges.

The committal was based on circumstantial evidence that a handgun found in a bedroom closet belonged to or was controlled by the applicant.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge relied on speculative opinion evidence from a police officer regarding clothing size in the bedroom to infer occupancy and control.

Because the remaining evidence merely placed the applicant in the apartment and did not link him to the bedroom or firearm, there was no admissible evidence supporting the essential element of possession.

The committal constituted a jurisdictional error and was quashed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Ontario Civil Remedies Act, 2001, arguing that its civil forfeiture provisions were ultra vires the province because they encroached on the federal criminal law power.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation is valid under the province's power over property and civil rights.

The Court found that the dominant purpose of the Act is to compensate victims and suppress conditions leading to crime by removing financial incentives, rather than to punish criminal offenders.

Furthermore, the Court concluded there was no operational conflict between the provincial forfeiture scheme and the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application for civil forfeiture of cash and marijuana grow equipment seized from the appellant's vehicle under the Civil Remedies Act.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires the province and violated the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding the Act's pith and substance relates to property and civil rights, not criminal law.

The court also held that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings as they do not result in true penal consequences.

The appeal was dismissed.