Konstantina Chantzis

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order compelling answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement from Huddy Conserve in the context of a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The application sought forfeiture of $53,990.00 in Canadian currency found in Mr. Conserve's home, alleged to be proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity (e.g., undeclared income, proceeds of crime, drug trafficking).

Mr. Conserve claimed legitimate ownership, having saved the funds over his working life.

The court found the requested information relevant to Mr. Conserve's financial means and the legitimacy of the funds, and ordered him to provide the answers and documents, emphasizing the "best efforts" requirement for disclosure.

The Crown brought a motion to admit two out-of-court hearsay statements during a trial on an assault charge arising from a domestic dispute.

The statements consisted of a 911 recording and police notebook statements.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay exceptions, examining both necessity and threshold reliability.

The complainant claimed memory loss regarding the events.

The court found that the Crown met its burden on both prongs of the test and admitted both the 911 tape and the police notebook statements for the truth of their contents.

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.