The Attorney General sought forfeiture of a residential property under Part III of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 on the basis that it had been used as a commercial marijuana grow operation.
The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to production of marijuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and received a fine in criminal proceedings where the property restraint order was lifted and no forfeiture was pursued.
The court found on a balance of probabilities that the property had been used as an instrument of unlawful activity generating profit and that the respondent was not a responsible owner.
However, applying the “interests of justice” exception under the Civil Remedies Act, the court held that forfeiture would be unfair in light of the circumstances surrounding the plea bargain and the respondent’s reasonable belief that his home would not later be subject to forfeiture.
The application for forfeiture was therefore dismissed.
