Sandra Di Ciano

The Attorney General of Ontario previously obtained an order approving the settlement of an application under the Civil Remedies Act.

Following the release of the endorsement, counsel for the Attorney General wrote to the court to clarify a point in their factum regarding the timing of a cited Divisional Court decision relative to the enactment of section 18.1 of the Act.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement acknowledging the clarification, noting that while it might have affected the analysis, it did not change the decision to grant the relief sought.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, against various properties seized from an individual and an interested party.

The Attorney General and the interested party, Halyna Borylo, agreed to a settlement.

The court, on motion, approved the settlement, which provided for the forfeiture of most seized assets to the Crown, while allowing the interested party to retain a specific motor vehicle and a portion of the seized funds.

The court emphasized that settlement approval in civil forfeiture cases requires an analysis of whether the proposed settlement satisfies the statutory requirements of the Civil Remedies Act, rather than merely accepting party consent.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought an order for forfeiture of $163,015.29 held in a TD bank account, pursuant to the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, alleging the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity (fraud) or the account was an instrument of unlawful activity.

The account owner, Kamal Sehgal, opposed the application, asserting the funds were legitimately deposited through a Hawala system.

The court found that the majority of the funds ($141,965.29) were proceeds of unlawful activity and the account was an instrument of unlawful activity, rejecting Sehgal's explanation of a legitimate Hawala transaction due to lack of credible evidence and missing essential elements.

A portion of the funds ($21,050.29) was deemed legitimately owned by Sehgal and exempted from forfeiture, while the balance was forfeited to the Crown.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, for $44,215 in Canadian currency seized from a residence associated with a known drug trafficker.

Wrann Gould, the trafficker's father, claimed the money as his life savings, denying its connection to unlawful activity.

The court applied a two-pronged test: whether the currency was proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity, and if forfeiture was not clearly against the interests of justice.

The court found Mr. Gould's explanations for the cash to be incredible and unreasonable, concluding the money was proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.

The court further determined that forfeiture was consistent with the Act's purposes and not "manifestly harsh" or "draconian."

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of cash seized from a vehicle following a traffic stop under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

Police discovered marijuana and approximately $11,775 in mixed Canadian and U.S. currency in the vehicle, and later found drugs, cocaine, and trafficking paraphernalia at the driver's residence.

The interested parties claimed the money represented savings and loans intended to purchase DJ equipment, but their explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by objective evidence.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the cash was likely intended to purchase drugs for resale and therefore constituted an instrument of unlawful activity.

No interested party established legitimate or responsible ownership, and forfeiture was not clearly contrary to the interests of justice.

The moving parties sought exemption from attending examinations for discovery on medical grounds.

The court considered the prima facie right of a party to examine adverse parties under Rule 31.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirement that any exemption be supported by compelling medical evidence.

The medical notes provided were vague and lacked detail regarding the alleged inability to participate in discovery or the specific risks posed by the process.

The court held that the moving parties failed to discharge their burden to justify exemption from discovery.

The motion was dismissed, though the court permitted reasonable accommodations during discovery to mitigate potential health concerns.

The applicant sought a civil forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for $42,885 seized by police from an individual during an investigation.

The respondent did not appear or file responding materials despite being personally served.

The court held that the evidence, including the manner the cash was bundled, the absence of a credible explanation, contradictory casino records, and the individual’s prior drug trafficking convictions, supported the conclusion on a balance of probabilities that the money constituted proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.

The application for forfeiture was therefore granted.