Canada Case Law

Ghotaymi v. British Columbia Lottery Corporation

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

BCLC lawfully exercised its statutory authority to impose sourced cash conditions; the duty of procedural fairness was low given the administrative, precautionary nature of the measure, and any procedural deficiency was cured when BCLC provided an explanation; the decision to impose conditions based on frequent large cash buy-ins, pattern of transactions near the reporting threshold, and occupation was reasonable on the record; collection of banking information did not contravene FOIPPA. The petition is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Jurisdiction and statutory authority
• Reasonableness standard of review
• Sourced cash conditions
• Freedom of information and protection of privacy act

Read case analysis

Austin Jewellers v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Austin Jewellers’ appeal from FINTRAC penalties, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Director’s assessment or penalty analysis.

• Administrative monetary penalties
• Compliance program requirements
• Risk assessment obligations
• Compliance agreements
• Standard of review
• Administrative-monetary-penalties

Read case analysis

Montecristo Jewellers Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Montecristo Jewellers’ appeal on three FINTRAC violations, but allowed it on the training-program violation and quashed that penalty.

• Suspicious transaction reporting
• Compliance program requirements
• Risk assessment
• Administrative monetary penalties
• Statutory interpretation
• Suspicious-transaction-reporting

Read case analysis

Ali v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review of a partial seizure-return decision under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act was dismissed; the delegate’s decision was found fair and reasonable.

• Seizure of currency
• Ministerial review
• Reasonableness standard
• Procedural fairness
• Forfeiture
• Currency reporting requirements

Read case analysis

Pesti v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review of a $2,500 PCMLTFA penalty for failing to report cross-border currency was dismissed. The Court found the Delegate’s decision reasonable.

• Proceeds of crime (money laundering) and terrorist financing act
• Section 29 penalty review
• Cross‑border currency reporting (section 12)
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Pcmltfa
• Cross-border-currency-reporting

Read case analysis

Kabul Farms Inc. v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court allowed Kabul Farms Inc.’s appeal in part, holding the FINTRAC penalty decision was unreasonable because the penalty calculation lacked individualized reasoning.

• Administrative monetary penalties
• Scope of legislation
• Reasonableness review
• Due diligence defence
• Penalty calculation transparency
• Administrative-monetary-penalties

Read case analysis

Amari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a forfeiture decision after finding the applicant failed to prove the legitimate source of unreported cash.

• Currency reporting
• Forfeiture of unreported currency
• Reasonableness standard of review
• Ministerial discretion under s.29 pcmltfa
• Currency-reporting
• Forfeiture

Read case analysis

Zeid v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Court

Federal Court

Assessment of costs in a Federal Court statutory appeal. The assessment officer allowed the defendant’s bill of costs in full at $9,376.11.

• Assessment of costs
• Tariff
• Role of assessment officer
• Proceeds of crime (money laundering) and terrorist financing act
• Assessment-of-costs
• Bill-of-costs

Read case analysis

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Qasem

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal held the Minister's decision to maintain forfeiture was reasonable because the respondent failed to adduce evidence, as invited, that the funds were legitimately obtained; the Applications Judge erred by imposing too high a burden and by failing to give deference to the Minister, so the appeal was allowed and the judicial review dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Burden of proof
• Forfeiture of funds
• Ministerial discretion
• Standard of review
• Proceeds of crime (money laundering) and terrorist financing act

Read case analysis

Vito v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is allowed because the application judge erred in applying s.33: the applicant failed to demonstrate he exercised 'all reasonable care' under s.33(c) (given the circumstances of entrusting substantial cash to a non-family courier without inquiry), and thus failed the statutory test; the application judge's return order is set aside and the third-party application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Currency seizure
• Third-party claim under s.33
• Standard of proof
• All reasonable care
• Complicity and collusion

Read case analysis