Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00685734-0000 DATE: 2022-09-19

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Attorney General for Ontario, Applicant -and- $66,760 in Canadian Currency (in rem), Respondent

BEFORE: Robert Centa J.

COUNSEL: Brandon Fragomeni, for the applicant Tariq Stanley, self-represented Ian Greenway, for Julie Dagnall

HEARD: September 19, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On August 18, 2022, the Attorney General of Ontario issued an application for an order pursuant to ss. 3(1) and 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 28 (the “Act”) for an order forfeiting $66,760 in Canadian currency seized on May 29, 2020, by the Toronto Police Service (the “Currency”). The Attorney General has brought this motion pursuant to sections 4 and 9 of the Act to preserve the currency pending the disposition of the forfeiture application.

[2] For the reasons that follow, I grant the preservation motion.

Facts

[3] The Currency was seized by the Toronto Police Service on May 30, 2020, from the residence of Tariq Stanley. Some background information will be helpful to explain the circumstances that led to the seizure.

[4] In 2013, Mr. Stanley was convicted of the possession of a firearm, trafficking a firearm, possession of credit cards obtained by crime, two counts of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence and failure to comply with recognizance in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As part of the 2013 conviction, Mr. Stanley received a prohibition for the possession of firearms, crossbows, restricted weapons, ammunition, and explosive substances for 10 years.

[5] On February 5, 2020, an unknown person opened fire on Mr. Stanley and his companion as they stepped out of Mr. Stanley’s Land Rover on Queen Street West. Shortly after the shooting incident, the police attempted to stop Mr. Stanley’s vehicle. Mr. Stanley, who was driving, did not stop for the police. During the ensuing police chase, someone threw a black satchel from the moving Land Rover. The satchel contained a prohibited firearm, 17 rounds of ammunition, and a health card belonging to Mr. Stanley’s companion. Mr. Stanley was subsequently arrested and charged with several offences relating to the chase and the possession of prohibited items while barred from their possession.

[6] On April 13, 2020, shots were fired near Newmarket. The shots damaged some traffic signs and at least one shot struck a home. Witnesses identified a car near the shooting that was leased to Mr. Stanley and that was seen at a residence where Mr. Stanley lived with Chelsa Dagnall.

[7] On May 29, 2020, the Toronto Police Service arrested Mr. Stanley in connection with the charges stemming from the chase on February 5, 2020. On May 30, 2020, the Toronto Police Service executed a search warrant on Mr. Stanley’s residence, the Land Rover, and a Nissan Pathfinder that Mr. Stanley had rented. The Toronto Police Service seized a number of items including:

a. $66,760 in Canadian currency at the residence, stored in a black Guess bag located under an ottoman. The majority of the seized currency comprised $20 bills (70%), organized into 13 bundles of bills bound with elastics (including 4 bundles of 250 x $20, totaling $20,000 and 6 bundles of 100 x $50, totaling $30,000); and

b. A Glock 19 handgun loaded with 16 rounds of ammunition in the center console of the Nissan Pathfinder.

[8] On May 31, 2020, Mr. Stanley was charged with possession of a firearm and on July 1, 2021, he was charged in connection with the Newmarket shootings. Ultimately, Mr. Stanley was found not guilty of the firearm offences and the charges related to the Newmarket shootings were stayed at the request of the Crown.

The Civil Remedies Act

[9] In Attorney General of Ontario and $543,515 in Canadian Currency (in rem), 2021 ONSC 4323, paras. 18 to 23, Perell J. helpfully provided a thoughtful analysis of the law:

[18] The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 was enacted to deter crime and to compensate victims of criminal activity. 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. To achieve its purposes, the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 authorizes in rem forfeiture of property connected to criminal activity. 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.

[19] 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. Under section 3, the court may order property forfeit, if the court finds that the property is “proceeds of unlawful activity”. Under section 8, the court may order property forfeit, if the court finds that the property is “an instrument of unlawful activity”. For a forfeiture order, the onus is on the Attorney General to show on the balance of probabilities that either: (a) the property is “proceeds of unlawful activity”; or (b) the property is an “instrument of unlawful activity”.

[20] Before the Attorney General seeks a preservation, the Attorney General will request the court to grant a preservation order. The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 sets out a two-pronged test for a preservation order. First, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property sought to be preserved is either “proceeds of unlawful activity” or an “instrument of unlawful activity”. Second, if the court is satisfied that the first part of the test has been met, then, the court “shall” make the preservation order “except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice”.

[21] A reasonable ground to believe is a lower standard of proof than a balance of probabilities.

[22] Possession of bundled currency is circumstantial evidence that is consistent with the currency having been from drug trafficking, which is notoriously a cash business. The presence of a large quantity of cash in proximity to weigh scales and controlled substances leads to a strong inference of drug dealing.

[23] 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. A level of suspicion calling for a credible answer arises where significant amounts of bundled currency are located in proximity to other indicia of drug trafficking. 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 an apparent source of income may be considered by the court as part of the forfeiture analysis. [internal citations omitted]

Analysis

[10] Mr. Stanley appeared today on his own behalf. He did not have any submissions to make on the preservation order. He asked that the forfeiture application proceed as quickly as possible because he hoped that the funds would not be forfeited and would be made available for Chelsa Dagnall, who has been injured in a motor vehicle accident.

[11] Mr. Greenway appeared today on behalf of his client Julie Dagnall. He is in the process of determining if Julie Dagnall can be appointed litigation guardian for Chelsa Dagnall. Mr. Greenway confirmed that he had been working with counsel for the Attorney General on this matter and hoped to be able to participate on the return of the forfeiture application. He did not have any submissions to make on the preservation order.

[12] No one filed evidence in response to the Attorney General’s motion for a preservation order. The court may draw an adverse inference if a responding party fails to produce relevant and exculpatory evidence, leaves he Attorney General’s evidence unanswered, or fails to adduce a credible and reasonable explanation to account for the source and the presence of the funds or property: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $16,020 in Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2021 ONSC 7617 at para. 17; Attorney General of Ontario v. $52,820 CDN et al., 2019 ONSC 4746 at paras. 21-23; Attorney General of Ontario v. $53,140 CDN (in rem), 2015 ONSC 3400 at para. 46; 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 and 32; Attorney General of Ontario v. $9,616.98 in Canadian Currency, 2011 ONSC 3820 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 5-7.

[13] I find that the Attorney General has established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the seized currency is the proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity as described in ss. 4(2) and 9(2) of the Act.

[14] Under the Act, the court shall make the preservation order unless it would clearly not be in the interests of justice to do so. No evidence was placed before me to indicate that it would not be in the interests of justice to make a preservation order. I see no reason not to make the order sought.

[15] I order that the $66,760 at issue be preserved pursuant to the Act pending the determination of the forfeiture application. I order the Toronto Police Service shall either:

a. deposit the $66,760 in Canadian currency with the Accountant of the Superior Court in an interest-bearing account to the credit of the application; or

b. Maintain the funds in police custody at the discretion of the Director of Asset Management – Civil.

[16] I have signed the order provided by the Attorney General.

Robert Centa J.

Date: September 19, 2022