J. McKeachie

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 to approve a settlement with one of five respondents regarding seized property linked to suspected drug trafficking.

The settlement proposed returning $2,000 and a licence plate to the respondent, with the remainder of the property forfeited to the Crown.

The court interpreted section 18.1 of the Act, finding it grants broad discretion to approve settlements and avoid all-or-nothing forfeiture outcomes.

The court approved the settlement as reasonable and ordered the remaining property forfeited.

Costs decision following a motion by the Attorney General seeking a stay of an order pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying order directed that more than $4 million seized in an in rem forfeiture proceeding be released to the respondents.

The court found that although the Attorney General brought the motion on very short notice, the respondents’ opposition was unreasonable given the risk that releasing the funds could render the appeal moot and cause irreparable harm by allowing the money to leave the jurisdiction.

However, the respondents should not bear costs that would have been incurred even if the motion had been brought on consent.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by two respondents jointly and severally.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act for an order to preserve over $4 million, representing the sale proceeds of a commercial property.

The property had previously housed a massive, concealed marijuana grow operation run by tenants, and was later leased to a company involved in a U.S. stock fraud scheme.

The court found no issue estoppel from prior unsuccessful federal criminal forfeiture proceedings against the property owner.

While the court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity due to the grow operation, it ultimately dismissed the preservation motion.

The court concluded that preserving the funds would clearly not be in the interests of justice, as the owner had no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful activities, making a preservation order manifestly harsh and draconian.