Ontario (Attorney General) v. 20 Strike Avenue

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 20 Strike Avenue

Although the application judge erred in some factual findings about delay and in failing to give effect to s.8(5), on fresh consideration the appellate court concluded that discretionary relief under s.8(1) should be granted because the connection between the property and unlawful activity was limited and intermittent, the owner was not complicit nor profited, the owner’s conduct and surrounding circumstances made forfeiture a manifestly harsh and inequitable result, and therefore forfeiture was clearly not in the interests of justice.

Citation
2014 ONCA 395
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent (in Rem): 20 Strike Avenue, Bowmanville, Ontario (property)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Forfeiture Under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 / Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice (forfeiture Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; forfeiture denied on exercise of discretion under s.8(1) (Interests of Justice Exception); respondent awarded costs on appeal.
Legal Topics
Interests of Justice Exception (s.8(1)), Responsible Owner Exception (s.8(3)), Statutory Interpretation, Delay and Prejudice, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Forfeiture Property Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (ancillary) Interests of Justice Exception (s.8(1)) Responsible Owner Exception (s.8(3)) Statutory Interpretation Delay and Prejudice +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Ontario

Applicant/appellant

20 Strike Avenue, Bowmanville, Ontario (property)

Respondent (in Rem)

Procedural Posture

Civil Forfeiture Under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 / Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice (forfeiture Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Interests of Justice Exception in s.8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act applies to bar forfeiture
  2. 2 Whether the Responsible Owner Exception in s.8(3) applies
  3. 3 Whether unexplained or prejudicial delay by the Attorney General defeats a s.8(1) forfeiture claim despite s.8(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the application judge erred in some factual findings about delay and in failing to give effect to s.8(5), on fresh consideration the appellate court concluded that discretionary relief under s.8(1) should be granted because the connection between the property and unlawful activity was limited and intermittent, the owner was not complicit nor profited, the owner’s conduct and surrounding circumstances made forfeiture a manifestly harsh and inequitable result, and therefore forfeiture was clearly not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; forfeiture denied on exercise of discretion under s.8(1) (Interests of Justice Exception); respondent awarded costs on appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Forfeiture denied under s.8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001