Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem)
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge gave cogent reasons, permissibly accepted the uncontradicted opinion of Sergeant Hawkes and rejected the appellant’s explanation, and those factual findings were supported by the record such that no reversible error warranted re‑weighing the evidence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 201
- Parties
- Applicant (respondent in Appeal): Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent (appellant in Appeal): $44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Forfeiture / Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture, Civil Remedies Act, Burden of Proof, Adequacy of Reasons
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General of Ontario
Applicant (respondent in Appeal)
$44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem)
Respondent (appellant in Appeal)
Procedural Posture
Civil Forfeiture / Appeal (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application judge provided adequate reasons that the funds were proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity under ss.3(1) or 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001
- 2 Whether the appellate court should re-weigh evidence in absence of reversible error
- 3 Whether the uncontradicted opinion of police can be accepted as connecting funds to unlawful activity
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge gave cogent reasons, permissibly accepted the uncontradicted opinion of Sergeant Hawkes and rejected the appellant’s explanation, and those factual findings were supported by the record such that no reversible error warranted re‑weighing the evidence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Forfeiture order confirmed: approximately $44,425 forfeited to the Crown
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-03-08 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 201 Docket numbers C61622 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Gillese, Eileen E.; Brown, David M. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem), 2017 ONCA 201 DATE: 20170308 DOCKET: C61622 Hoy A.C.J.O., Gillese and Brown JJ.A. BETWEEN Attorney General of Ontario Applicant (Respondent in Appeal) and $44,425 In Canadian Currency (In Rem) Respondent (Appellant in Appeal) Jeffrey Langevin, for the appellant Jennifer Malabar, for the respondent Heard: March 6, 2017 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Ronald Laliberté of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 22, 2015. ENDORSEMENT [1] The application judge granted an order forfeiting to the Crown approximately $44,425 in Canadian currency found by police while executing a search warrant on a camping trailer owned by the appellant. The search was conducted during a drug investigation. In addition to the funds, police found other items in the trailer indicative of drug trafficking. [2] The appellant argues that the application judge did not provide adequate reasons for concluding that the funds were probably the proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity and therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to ss. 3(1) or 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 28. [3] We reject this argument. [4] While characterizing his concern as the adequacy of the trial judge’s reasons, the appellant really asks this court to re-weigh the evidence that was before the application judge in the absence of reversible error. The application judge was entitled to accept the uncontradicted opinion of Sergeant Hawkes that the funds were connected to unlawful activity. The application judge gave cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant’s explanation and his conclusion was fully supported by the record. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. “Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.” “Eileen E. Gillese J.A.” “D.M. Brown J.A.”