Jeffrey Costain

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the civil forfeiture of approximately $3.7 million held in the respondents' bank accounts, alleging the funds were the proceeds or instruments of illegal online cannabis sales and money laundering.

The respondents had used a Hawala informal currency exchange to transfer legitimately earned Chinese currency into Canadian funds.

The court found that while a small portion of the funds could be traced to unlawful activity, the respondents were 'uninvolved interest holders' and 'responsible owners' who acquired the funds for fair value without knowledge of the illegal source.

The application for forfeiture was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of the contents of several bank accounts under the Civil Remedies Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the court found that the AG had uploaded over 112,000 pages of unorganized and improperly formatted documents to CaseLines, rendering the electronic record unusable.

The court adjourned the hearing and issued detailed procedural directions for the proper organization, hyperlinking, and uploading of the electronic materials.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for his sexual assault trial.

The court found that while the accused was ineligible for Legal Aid and required counsel for complex pre-trial motions under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, he failed to establish indigence.

The court noted the accused's high level of education and combined income with his common-law partner, concluding he could afford the estimated $3,000 fee for the pre-trial motions.

The application was denied.

The accused was convicted of several offences related to domestic violence after the complainant's recanted statements were admitted for their truth.

Prior to sentencing, the defence learned that the Crown had instructed police to remove a material witness warrant for the complainant from CPIC and failed to disclose that the complainant had been arrested and released.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process and subpoenaed the trial Crown.

The court quashed the subpoena, finding the Crown's evidence was not strictly necessary.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted an abuse of process by interfering with a judicial order and breaching disclosure obligations.

However, the court concluded a stay was not warranted and instead ordered a mistrial.

During pre-trial motions for a murder trial, the accused sought an order to have his leg shackles removed while in the courtroom.

The Crown opposed the request for security reasons, citing alleged gang affiliation, a prior incident in the cells, and staffing pressures.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused posed a flight or safety risk to justify the continued use of shackles, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

The court ordered the shackles removed.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly assess whether the arresting officer’s belief of impairment was objectively reasonable, improperly relied on the refusal to provide a breath sample, and placed undue weight on demeanor evidence when comparing in-court testimony to video evidence.

The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reasonable and probable grounds and that the factual findings—odour of alcohol, slurred speech, presence of alcohol, and difficulty opening the glove compartment—supported the officer’s belief of impairment.

The court also held that refusal evidence was admissible and could support an adverse inference under the Criminal Code.

The appeal court found no reversible error in the credibility findings or evidentiary assessment.