Ontario (Attorney General) v. 714 Railton Avenue et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: MacPherson, Cronk and Gillese, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2014), 322 O.A.C. 54 (CA),2014 ONCA 397
• Date: 25 February 2014

Ont. (A.G.) v. 714 Railton Avenue (2014), 322 O.A.C. 54 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.003

Attorney General of Ontario (applicant/appellant) v. 714 Railton Avenue, London, PIN# 0813-0834 (LT) (in rem) and Russell Kenneth Dowdle (respondent/respondent in appeal)

(C57097; 2014 ONCA 397)

Indexed As: Ontario (Attorney General) v. 714 Railton Avenue et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacPherson, Cronk and Gillese, JJ.A.

May 16, 2014.

Summary:

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1291, dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of a property under s. 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: This decision was released concurrently with decisions in two other related cases. See 322 O.A.C. 31; 2014 ONCA 395 and 322 O.A.C. 50; 2014 ONCA 396.

Criminal Law - Topic 7062

Civil remedies for unlawful activity (Civil Remedies Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, etc.) - Remedies - Forfeiture - An application judge dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of a property under s. 8(1) of the Civil Remedies Act on the basis that forfeiture was not in the interests of justice because the property owner had pled guilty to production of marijuana only after receiving an assurance from the federal Crown that there would be no attempt to seek forfeiture of his home - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal - The court agreed with the Crown that the application judge had erred in considering the effect that possible civil proceedings might have on the criminal plea bargain process generally - However, this did not mean that her ultimate conclusion was wrong - The application judge's factual analysis, under the umbrella of fairness, was entirely supportable and not in conflict with the authorities - See paragraphs 14 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 8477 Darlington Crescent - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. 1140 Aubin Road, Windsor et al. (2011), 279 O.A.C. 268; 2011 ONCA 363, refd to. [para. 7].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 624; 387 N.R. 206; 249 O.A.C. 355; 2009 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 16].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee (2007), 225 O.A.C. 40; 86 O.R.(3d) 168; 2007 ONCA 406, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

William J. Manuel and Dan Phelan, for the appellant;

Malcolm B. Scott, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 25, 2014, by MacPherson, Cronk and Gillese, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On May 16, 2014, MacPherson, J.A., released the following reasons for judgment for the court.