Ljusi Brace

The Attorney General of Ontario sought the forfeiture of $270,313 as proceeds of crime under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, following a police seizure during an investigation into an illegal gambling operation.

The money was found in the bedroom of Dimitri Kellesis, who contended it comprised his parents' life savings and his legitimate earnings.

The court found Kellesis's explanation for his presence at the gambling location and the source of most of the funds not credible.

However, it accepted that $75,000 of the seized amount represented legitimate savings belonging to his mother.

The court also ruled that police opinion evidence, without expert qualification, was inadmissible for proving proceeds of crime on a balance of probabilities.

The application for forfeiture was allowed in part, with the non-Canadian currency returned to Kellesis and $75,000 returned to his mother, while the remaining funds were forfeited.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to quash a Registrar's Order for Delivery and Assessment obtained by its former client.

The client had certified in a requisition that he had requested the firm's accounts but had not received them.

The court found that the firm had in fact delivered all accounts to the client at or about the dates they were rendered.

Because the requisition was factually incorrect, the court quashed the Registrar's Order, without prejudice to the client bringing an Application for an order directing the assessment of the accounts under section 4 of the Solicitors Act.

The applicant subtenant brought an application seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful lockout by the respondent sublandlord.

The applicant claimed the parties had orally agreed to a 75% rent reduction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the existence of the oral agreement, noting the sublandlord had requested full payment and the applicant failed to provide documentation required for a Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Act (CECRA) application.

The court held the lockout was lawful and not precluded by pandemic-related amendments to the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The application was dismissed with costs.