A. Introduction

[1] The Attorney General of Ontario applies for a forfeiture Order pursuant to section 3 (proceeds of unlawful activity) and section 8 (instrument of unlawful activity) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.[^1] This Application is with respect to $16,020 in Canadian currency seized by members of the Toronto Police Service on October 29, 2019 from the residence of Trae Murray, at 609-7730 Kipling Avenue.

[2] For the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed.

B. The Civil Remedies Act, 2001

[3] The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 was enacted to deter crime and to compensate victims of criminal activity.[^2] The Act is independent from the forfeiture provisions of the Criminal Code and the Act establishes a civil scheme for the forfeiture of property connected with criminal activity.

[4] To achieve its purposes, the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 authorizes in rem forfeiture of property connected to criminal activity.[^3] An application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 is a proceeding in rem, being a claim against property rather than against a person. The Act does not create an offence and is not concerned about the identification, charge, or prosecution, conviction or punishment of an offender.[^4]

[5] The proceedings under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 are taken against the property itself and can be initiated without joining the owners or possessors as respondents. Any person with a known interest in such property is entitled to notice and is deemed to be a party to the proceeding as if they were a named defendant or respondent.[^5]

[6] Under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, the Attorney General is authorized to bring a forfeiture application pursuant to section 3 or section 8 of Act. Sections 3 and 8 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 state:

Forfeiture order

(1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (3) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting property that is in Ontario to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the property is proceeds of unlawful activity.

Action or application

(2) The proceeding may be by action or application.

Forfeiture order

(1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (3) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting property that is in Ontario to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the property is an instrument of unlawful activity.

Action or application

(2) The proceeding may be by action or application.

[7] For the purposes of a s. 3 forfeiture order, s. 2 of the Act defines “proceeds of unlawful activity”, “property”, and “unlawful activity” as follows:

Definitions

In this Part, …

“proceeds of unlawful activity” means property acquired, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, as a result of unlawful activity, whether the property was acquired before or after this Act came into force, but does not include proceeds of a contract for recounting crime within the meaning of the Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act, 2002;

“property” means real or personal property, and includes any interest in property; (“bien”)

“unlawful activity” means an act or omission that,

(a) is an offence under an Act of Canada, Ontario or another province or territory of Canada, or

(b) is an offence under an Act of a jurisdiction outside Canada, if a similar act or omission would be an offence under an Act of Canada or Ontario if it were committed in Ontario,

whether the act or omission occurred before or after this Part came into force.

[8] For the purposes of a s. 8 forfeiture order, s. 7 of the Act, defines “instrument of unlawful activity”, “property”, and “unlawful activity”, as follows:

Definitions

7.(1) In this Part,

“instrument of unlawful activity” means property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, would be likely to or is intended to result in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person, and includes any property that is realized from the sale or other disposition of such property; (“instrument d’activité illégale”)

“property” means real or personal property, and includes any interest in property; (“bien”)

“unlawful activity” means an act or omission that,

(a) is an offence under an Act of Canada, Ontario or another province or territory of Canada, or

(b) is an offence under an Act of a jurisdiction outside Canada, if a similar act or omission would be an offence under an Act of Canada or Ontario if it were committed in Ontario,

whether the act or omission occurred before or after this Part came into force.

Instruments of unlawful activity

(2) For the purpose of the definition of “instrument of unlawful activity” in subsection (1), proof that property was used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, resulted in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the property is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, would be likely to result in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person.

Same

(3) Where property that is the subject of a proceeding or intended proceeding under section 8 was modified or sold or otherwise disposed of before an order is made under subsection 8 (1), the determination of whether the modified property or the property that was realized from the sale or other disposition of the property is an “instrument of unlawful activity” shall be based on whether the property was likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity before it was modified or sold or otherwise disposed of.

[9] Unlawful activity is not limited to crimes under the Criminal Code and means offences under federal or provincial statutes or offences outside Canada if a similar act or omission would be an offence if committed in Ontario.

[10] In Ontario (Attorney General) v. $138,650 in Canada Currency (In Rem),[^6] welfare fraud was found to be an unlawful activity giving rise to a forfeiture. In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Condominium Units 1210 and 1310 at 8 Scollard Street, Toronto (In Rem),[^7] violations of the Consumer Protection Act,[^8] constituted an illegal activity. In Ontario (Attorney General) v. $25,610 in Canadian Currency (In Rem)[^9] and Ontario (Attorney General) v. $13,900 in Canadian Currency (In Rem),[^10] trading or exporting vehicles without license to do so was unlawful activity. In Ontario (Attorney General) v. $41,700,[^11] failure to file income tax returns was held to constitute an unlawful activity for the purpose of forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

[11] Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, an offence may be found to have been committed even if no person has been charged with the offence or even if a person was charged with the offence, but the charge was withdrawn or stayed, or the person was acquitted of the charge.[^12]

[12] A conviction on criminal charges is not required for the court to find that property is proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity. The statute does not require finding of fault, either criminal or civil, against a person.[^13] The Attorney General does not have to prove that the property in question is related to any particular offence.[^14] However, a respondent's criminal record is admissible and may be probative as similar fact evidence of a respondent’s past unlawful activity.[^15]

[13] Currency may be proceeds of unlawful activity, and the Attorney General can obtain a forfeiture order, if the Attorney General can establish by direct or circumstantial evidence that the money was acquired from crime in general.[^16]

[14] Possession of bundled currency is circumstantial evidence that is consistent with the currency having been from drug trafficking which is notoriously a cash business.[^17] The presence of a large quantity of cash in proximity to weigh scales and controlled substances leads to a strong inference of drug dealing.[^18] Funds from the unlawful activity of an illegal gambling establishment are proceeds of an unlawful activity.[^19] Currency may be an instrument of unlawful activity because drug money can be used to purchase more drugs for resale.[^20]

[15] There are situations where property can be both proceeds of unlawful activity and an instrument of unlawful activity. For example, in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chow,[^21] the Court accepted that money that was proceeds of unlawful activity (because it was obtained from the sale of drugs) was also an instrument of unlawful activity when it could be used to purchase more drugs.

[16] The possession of large sums of money in a residence raises a suspicion that the currency is proceeds of an instrument of unlawful activity because it is highly unusual that an individual would keep large sums of money in their home for lawful activities, and a court may consider the fact of large sums of money being stored in a residence as a factor in determining that the currency is subject to forfeiture.[^22]

[17] Where suspicious circumstances are present, the Court may draw an adverse inference from the absence of evidence and a respondent’s failure to adduce a credible and reasonable explanation to account for the source and the presence of the funds or property.[^23]

[18] Because it is a known fact that persons involved in illegal drug activity are found carrying large sums of money from drug sales or purchases, the inference that arises when a person is found with large sums of money is that the money is the proceeds of unlawful activity or that the money is the instrument of unlawful activity and this factual circumstance calls for a credible and reasonable explanation as to why the funds are not connected to an unlawful activity.[^24]

[19] A respondent's failure to provide a credible explanation for a legitimate source of the property, for possession of large amounts of money or an explanation for a lavish lifestyle without apparent source of income may be considered by the court as part of the forfeiture analysis.[^25]

[20] In Ontario (Attorney General) v. $43,120,[^26] the Court considered and rejected the respondent’s claim that the money seized – bundled cash found in a gym bag in a storage locker and at his residence – was “either through working very hard and saving and/or by winning monies at local casinos”. The Court ordered forfeiture of the seized money, as there were indicators of drug trafficking involvement and no documents to support the respondent’s assertion that the money was from any legitimate business or casino winnings.

[21] The “clearly not in the interests of justice” exception to a forfeiture order is narrowly construed, and relief from forfeiture is very much the exception and should be granted only where the party seeking that remedy clearly makes the case that forfeiture would lead to an unequitable and unjust result; the interests of justice exception should only be granted where the party seeking relief from forfeiture has established that forfeiture would be manifestly harsh or draconian. In seeking relief from forfeiture based on the “clearly not in the interests of justice” exception to a forfeiture order, the onus is upon the party seeking relief to demonstrate that in all the circumstances, the forfeiture order will be a manifestly harsh and inequitable result.[^27]

[22] In considering whether to grant relief from forfeiture, the court may consider, among other things: (a) the conduct of the party whose property is the subject of the forfeiture application, including knowledge or constructive knowledge of the unlawful activity, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the unlawful activity, any profit derived knowingly or unknowingly from the unlawful activity, and any steps taken after the owner became aware of the unlawful activity; (b) the disparity between the value of the property that is proceeds of unlawful activity and the value of the property sought to be forfeited; (c) the interplay between the purposes of the Act (i.e., compensation of victims, crime prevention, deterrence) and the exercise of the discretion to relieve from forfeiture. The list of factors is not exhaustive and whether relief from forfeiture should be granted must be determined on a case by case basis.[^28]

C. Facts

1. The Seizure

[23] The history of the seizure of the funds that are the subject of this forfeiture Application is as follows:

a. On October 25, 2019, the Toronto Police Service’s Guns and Gangs Unit opened an investigation of Trae Murray (born October 22, 1995) based on a confidential informant’s tip that he was in unlawful possession of a handgun.

b. Mr. Murray lived in a condominium apartment at 609-7730 Kipling Avenue, in the City of Toronto. He had a criminal record. In 2017, he was charged with possession of a Schedule II substance, but the charge was withdrawn. In May and September 2018, he had conditional discharges for possession of a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and a withdrawn charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

c. Through personal observation and through a review of recordings of video cameras at the condominium, the surveillance team of DC (Detective Constable) Rasmussen and DC Lillie observed two women accompanying Mr. Murray to and from his apartment on the 6^th floor of the building. They also observed two young children enter the unit.

d. On October 29, 2019, the police obtained a Criminal Code search warrant for the condominium unit, and at 6:50 am, the Emergency Task Force breached the door of Mr. Murray’s condo unit. The adult occupants of the unit were Mr. Murray, Lenval Taylor, Jordanne Bain, and Tammy Le.

e. Immediately upon entry, the police saw Mr. Murray throwing objects off of the balcony, and members of the team, stationed on the ground recovered a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson semi-automatic handgun.

f. DC Lillie searched the bedroom.

g. In a Sentry safe in the closet, DC Lillie found rolling papers, Bic lighters, a black balaclava, papers, and two bank envelopes. One of the envelopes had the logo of the Bank of Montreal and the other had the logo of the Toronto Dominion Bank. The two envelopes contained $15,000 in bundled bills bound by elastics. The Bank of Montreal envelope contained $5,000 (four bundles of 10x$100 bills, one bundle of 20x$20 bills, one bundle of 2x$50 bills and one bundle of 5x$100 bills). The Toronto Dominion Bank envelope contained $10,000 (10 bundles of 10x$100 bills).

h. In a black satchel in the bedroom between the wall and the bed, DC Lillie found marijuana, gum, lip gloss, scissors, rolling papers, and a wallet. The wallet contained bank cards, an Ontario photo driver’s licence in Mr. Murray’s name, and $1,020 in Canadian currency.

i. The police seized that money and various other items.

j. Mr. Murray, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Bain and Ms. Le were arrested and charged with possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm, possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm knowingly not holding a licence, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and possession of proceeds of crime.

k. On October 30, 2019, the Toronto Police Service made a Report to a Justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. On November 2, 2019, the court ordered that the seized property be held until the completion of all proceedings.

l. Mr. Murray pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 14 months. He served 55 days and received a suspended sentence with 15 months probation. The charges against Ms. Le did not proceed.

m. On June 17, 2020, the Honourable Justice R. Rutherford signed an Order for Disposition of Property to have the seized property released. The Order provides that $15,000 is to be released to Ms. Le and $1,020 is to be released to Mr. Murray.

2. Procedural History

[24] The procedural history of this forfeiture Application is as follows:

a. On July 7, 2020, the Attorney General issued a Notice of Application, under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001. The Application was supported by: (a) the affidavit dated July 7, 2020 of DC Lillie; (b) the affidavit dated October 13, 2020 of DC Allan Bishop; and (c) the affidavit dated April 1, 2021 of Lori Blaskavitch, law clerk for the Crown Law Office – Civil, Ministry of the Attorney General.

b. On August 14, 2020, Justice Vella issued a Preservation Order.

c. On October 26, 2020, the Attorney General served Ms. Le, Mr. Murray, and Ms. Bain with its Application Record. The cover letter set out a proposed timetable schedule.

d. Mr. Murray and Ms. Bain have never responded, filed a Notice of Appearance or made any claim to the currency.

e. On June 9, 2021, Justice Ramsey scheduled the forfeiture Application for October 28, 2021.

f. On July 8, 2021, Justice Pinto set a timetable for the forfeiture Application.

g. On August 4, 2021 and on October 15, 2021, Ms. Le served responding affidavits.

3. Ms. Le’s Explanation

[25] Ms. Le’s explanation for her claim that the $15,000 belongs to her is as follows:

a. Ms. Le is a single parent with two children, Leah (eight years old) and Noah (four years old) that she cares for along with her mother.

b. In the summer and fall of 2019, Ms. Le had a relationship with Mr. Murray and she would sleep over at his apartment from time to time.

c. Around the time of her relationship with Mr. Murray, Ms. Le was using Kijiji to search for a car to purchase privately.

d. In the summer of 2019, Ms. Le asked her sister Michelle Le to lend her $15,000 in cash. Ms. Le, who has a poor credit rating, says she needed the money to purchase the car.

e. Michelle Le’s bank statements from TD Canada Trust indicate that on August 1, 2019, Michelle made two withdrawals at two different branches, one for $10,000 and the second for $5,000. The statement also shows a $5,000 withdrawal on August 2, 2021. Ms. Le’s sister gave Ms. Le the $15,000 in early October. Ms. Le said that the money was already bundled in the envelopes that she received and that she put an elastic band over the already bundled money so that she would not have to count it again. Ms. Le did not think about depositing it in the bank and kept it at her residence.

f. The $15,000 was a loan from Ms. Le’s sister as evidenced by a written loan agreement signed by Ms. Le, Michelle Thuy Le and witnessed by Tieny Nguyen. The agreement is dated “October 2019.” The loan is repayable without interest on November 1, 2020.

g. On October 29, 2019, Ms. Le and her two children were at Mr. Murray’s apartment when the police burst in and made their search and seizure. Sometime earlier in the week, she was at a Halloween party at Mr. Murray’s apartment and she placed the money in Mr. Murray’s safe, where it was when the police made their entry in the apartment.

h. Ms. Le was charged with several offences under the Criminal Code. She was released on bail and the charges against her were ultimately withdrawn. She denies any wrongful activity. She denies that the $15,000 belongs to Mr. Murray. She says that the remaining funds of $1,020 did belong to Mr. Murray.

D. Discussion and Analysis

[26] Based on the totality of the circumstances and the available evidence, in my opinion, the Attorney General has met the onus on the balance of probabilities that the $1,020 in cash that Ms. Le identified as belonging to Mr. Murray is a proceed and/or an instrument of the unlawful activity of drug dealing. I order the $1,020 forfeit to the Attorney General.

[27] However, based on the totality of the circumstances and the available evidence, in my opinion, the Attorney General has not met the onus on the balance of probabilities that the $15,000 in cash that Ms. Le identified as being a loan from her sister to purchase a car is a proceed and/or an instrument of an unlawful activity. I order the $15,000 restored to Ms. Le.

[28] I believe Ms. Le’s sworn affidavit evidence that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe her evidence that the $15,000 was not the proceeds of drug dealing. The money came from her sister’s bank account and the loan was documented by a written loan agreement.

[29] The Attorney General’s argument that the loan agreement was an after-the-fact fabrication to cover up $15,000 of criminal proceeds is not a plausible argument because there is no basis to believe that all of Ms. Le, her sister, and the witness to the loan agreement were partners in crime with Mr. Murray or that they would expose themselves to perjury charges for his benefit. Ms. Le has no criminal record, and there is nothing to connect Ms. Le to criminal activity other than proximity to Mr. Murray, who has not been convicted of any offence associated with the seizure of the money from his apartment, but has a criminal record.

[30] I appreciate that persons involved in lawful activities do not typically keep significant amounts of money in a residence or on their person, but in the immediate case, I would attribute what Ms. Le did with her sister’s loan money to foolishness rather than to criminality.

[31] Ms. Le received the money from her sister in early October and anticipated meeting the private car vendor and paying cash by the end of the month. It was foolish what she did in not keeping the money in a bank until she actually needed it. What her sister did in holding on to $15,000 in cash from August to October before giving it to Ms. Le was also foolish. It appears to me, however, and I so find, that Michele Le earned the $15,000 from her non-criminal hairstyling business, she lent the money to Ms. Le for a car purchase, and the money is not the proceeds of crime nor an instrument of unlawful activity.

E. Conclusion

[32] For the above reasons, the Attorney General’s Application is granted with respect to the $1,020 and dismissed with respect to the $15,000. There shall be no order as to costs.

Perell, J.

Released: November 17, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00643550-0000

DATE: 20211117

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Applicant

and -

$16,020 IN CANADIAN CURRENCY (in rem)

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

PERELL J.

Released: November 17, 2021

[^1]: 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 28.

[^2]: Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 19 at para. 17.

[^3]: Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 19 at paras. 3 and 4.

[^4]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, 2007 ONCA 406, [2007] O.J. No. 2102 (C.A.), aff’d 2009 SCC 19.

[^5]: Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 30, Sched. A.ss. 15.5(2) and 15.6; Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 19) at para. 21.

[^6]: 2012 ONSC 7230.

[^7]: 2011 ONSC 3067.

[^8]: 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A.

[^9]: 2017 ONSC 708.

[^10]: 2015 ONSC 2267.

[^11]: 2011 ONSC 2058 (Master).

[^12]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $25,610 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2017 ONSC 708 at para. 21; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $39,460 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 6727; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, 2007 ONCA 406, [2007] O.J. No. 2102 (C.A.), aff’d 2009 SCC 19.

[^13]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, 2007 ONCA 406, [2007] O.J. No. 2102 (C.A.), aff’d 2009 SCC 19; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chow, [2003] O.J. No. 5387 (S.C.J).

[^14]: Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 SCC 91 at para. 21; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944 at para. 7.

[^15]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $5,545 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2011 ONSC 2827 at paras. 29-30 (Div. Ct.); Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor and 3142 Halpin Road, Windsor (In Rem), 2011 ONCA 363 at para. 46; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $9,616.98 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2011 ONSC 3820 (Div. Ct.); Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944.

[^16]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,425 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 7382; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $13,900 in Canadian Currency (In Rem) 2015 ONSC 2267; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, 2007 ONCA 406, [2007] O.J. No. 2102 (C.A.), aff’d 2009 SCC 19.

[^17]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944 at para. 14; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $9,616.98 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2011 ONSC 3820 at para. 7 (Div. Ct.).

[^18]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $39,460 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 6727 at para. 18.

[^19]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $64,560 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2016 ONSC 3683.

[^20]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $138,650 in Canada Currency (In Rem), 2012 ONSC 7230; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 170 Glenville Road, King (in rem), [2010] O.J. No. 2865 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2011 ONCA 444; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Jinarern, [2005] O.J. No. 6008 (S.C.J.); Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chow, [2003] O.J. No. 5387 (S.C.J).

[^21]: [2003] O.J. No. 5387 (S.C.J). See also Ontario (Attorney General) v. $104,877 in U.S. Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 5688.

[^22]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,215 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2018 ONSC 4001 at paras 14-16; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $205,100 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 2097 at paras 17-18; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $61,686.12 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), [2009] O.J. No. 3874 at paras. 24-25 (S.C.J.).

[^23]: Attorney General of Ontario v. $52,820 Canadian, 2019 ONSC 4746 at para. 23; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $13,900 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 2267 at paras. 47-48; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944 at paras. 21, 32; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $150,000 (In Rem), [2014] O.J. No. 2204 paras. 1-2 (S.C.J.), paras 1-2; Attorney General of Ontario v. $9,616.98 in Canadian Currency, 2011 ONSC 3820 at paras. 5-7 (Div. Ct.).

[^24]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,215 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2018 ONSC 4001; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $18,550.00 in Canadian currency (In Rem), 2016 ONSC 2237 at para. 129; (Attorney General) v. $104,877 in U.S. Currency (In Rem), 2016 ONCA 71; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $11,900 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2015 ONSC 4583; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944 at paras. 21 and 32; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $138,650 in Canada Currency (In Rem), 2012 ONSC 7230; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $42,885 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2012 ONSC 4843; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $1,650 Canadian Currency (In Rem), [2008] O.J. No. 2076 (S.C.J.); Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, 2007 ONCA 406, [2007] O.J. No. 2102 at para. 46 (C.A.), aff’d 2009 SCC 19.

[^25]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $14,700.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2016 ONSC 910 at para. 42; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $104,877 in U.S. Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 5688 at para. 35; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $9,475 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 3711; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $10,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 944, at paras. 21 and 32; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $25,680 in Canadian Currency (in Rem), [2009] O.J. No. 3734 (S.C.J.); Ontario (Attorney General) v. $1,650 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), [2008] O.J. No. 2076 (S.C.J.).

[^26]: 2011 ONSC 3076, [2011] O.J. No. 2546 (S.C.J.).

[^27]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $104,877 in U.S. Currency (In Rem), 2014 ONSC 5688 at para. 49; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 20 Strike Avenue, Bowmanville, Ontario (Pin #26932-0115(LT)) (In Rem), 2014 ONCA 395; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor and 3142 Halpin Road, Windsor (In Rem), 2011 ONCA 363.

[^28]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. 855 Darby Road, Welland (In Rem) 2017 ONSC 4953 at paras. 142-150; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $18,550.00 in Canadian currency (In Rem), 2016 ONSC 2237 at paras. 148-153; Ontario (Attorney General) v. $51,000.00 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2013 ONSC 1321 at para. 41; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 20 Strike Avenue, Bowmanville, Ontario (Pin #26932-0115(LT)) (In Rem), 2013 ONSC 2130 at paras. 16-19, aff’d 2014 ONCA 395; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor and 3142 Halpin Road, Windsor (In Rem), 2011 ONCA 363.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. $16,020 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2021 ONSC 7617

Case Summary

A. Introduction

B. The Civil Remedies Act, 2001

C. Facts

1. The Seizure

2. Procedural History

3. Ms. Le’s Explanation

D. Discussion and Analysis

E. Conclusion

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 3

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 4