Miriam Young

The applicant sought civil forfeiture of $11,900 seized during a police search that uncovered illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.

The application proceeded under ss. 3 and 8 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

Although criminal charges related to the search were withdrawn and a Criminal Code return order had directed the money be returned, the court held that such an order does not necessarily preclude a civil forfeiture proceeding.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including the discovery of the cash hidden with controlled substances and the absence of any credible explanation or competing claim, the court found it more likely than not that the currency constituted proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.

The court concluded that the prior return order did not bar relief under the Civil Remedies Act and ordered forfeiture.

The Attorney General applied for a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for $13,900 seized from the respondent during a traffic stop.

The police found the bundled cash, air fresheners, and a faint odour of marijuana in the vehicle, and a drug detector dog later alerted to the presence of cocaine on the currency.

The respondent claimed the money was from his business buying and selling cars, but he was not registered under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act.

The court found the currency was proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity and ordered its forfeiture, rejecting the respondent's claim for relief.

The Attorney General brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding $205,100 in Canadian currency seized by police during a domestic assault arrest.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the police officers' lay opinion evidence was inadmissible and the Crown failed to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, noting the money was bundled, tested positive for controlled substances via a canine sniff, and the respondents' explanation for the cash was not credible.

The preservation order was granted.

The Attorney General commenced a civil forfeiture application under ss. 3 and 8 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of $104,877 USD seized from an individual at Toronto Pearson International Airport.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a motion under s. 5(1) of the Act requesting payment of legal and expert expenses from the seized funds.

The court held that the respondent’s second motion for legal expenses was not barred by res judicata and that the expert accounting report constituted a reasonable legal expense, but the payment was capped by the statutory 15% limit under O. Reg. 91/02.

On the merits of the forfeiture application, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the funds were either proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity, relying on circumstantial evidence including the packaging, concealment, inconsistent explanations, and lack of credible lawful source.

The respondent failed to establish status as a legitimate or responsible owner and the interests of justice exception did not apply.