The applicant sought relief from a forfeiture order under s. 20(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in relation to residential property found to have been used as offence-related property in a marijuana trafficking investigation.
The court held that the applicable standard of proof was the civil balance of probabilities and applied the statutory criteria requiring a true and valid interest, apparent innocence of complicity, and proof of all reasonable care.
The court found the applicant had not established a true and valid interest because the evidence overwhelmingly supported nominee ownership for her father, and her credibility was significantly undermined by false mortgage and tax-related representations.
Although the court was not prepared to find likely complicity on the record, it concluded the applicant exercised no reasonable care in screening or supervising tenants.
The application was dismissed.
