Jean Marie Dixon

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for civil forfeiture of $18,550 CAD and $930 USD seized from the respondent during a traffic stop.

The respondent, who was driving his uncle's vehicle, was found in possession of a small amount of marijuana and a large quantity of bundled cash.

The court admitted the expert evidence of one police officer regarding drug trafficking indicia despite a missing Form 53 affidavit, but excluded another officer's evidence.

The court rejected the respondent's explanation that the cash was savings for a music business, finding the currency was likely the proceeds and instrument of drug trafficking.

The forfeiture application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs.

In a civil forfeiture proceeding under the Civil Remedies Act, the Attorney General brought a motion to compel cross-examination on affidavits originally sworn in related Criminal Code s. 490 proceedings but later appended as exhibits to an affidavit filed in the civil application.

The respondent argued that the affidavits were “spent,” that cross-examination would constitute a collateral attack on the earlier order returning the funds, and that res judicata applied.

The court held that where affidavits are appended as exhibits to a solicitor’s affidavit and filed in the proceeding, they are deemed to be filed as part of the application.

Because the respondent had an adverse interest in the seized currency and relied on the exhibit affidavits, the Attorney General was entitled to cross-examine their deponents.

The doctrines of collateral attack and res judicata did not prevent cross-examination at this stage.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of $10,000 seized from an individual during an arrest under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The court considered circumstantial evidence including the manner in which the cash was bundled, the circumstances of the seizure late at night, the respondent’s criminal record, and inconsistent explanations regarding the source and purpose of the funds.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court found the respondent’s explanation of savings from employment not credible and insufficient to rebut the inference that the funds were connected to unlawful activity, particularly drug trafficking.

The court held the money constituted proceeds of unlawful activity, an instrument of unlawful activity, or both.

The application for forfeiture was granted.