" ... Mr. Dowdle ... pleaded guilty to the production offence only after receiving an assurance from the federal Crown that there would be no attempt to seek forfeiture of his home."
" In my view, this factual analysis, under the umbrella of fairness, is entirely supportable and not in conflict with Chatterjee andDarlington. Importantly, in Darlington, the federal Crown chose not to prosecute the property owner and, apparently, did not consider seeking a forfeiture order. In this case, the federal Crown obtained restraint and management orders, prosecuted and obtained a conviction, and formally agreed to an order lifting the restraint order, and did so in language that a reasonable person could assume meant that although he would have to pay a $10,000 fine and forfeit chattel property worth about $8,000, at least his house was safe."
See Ontario (Attorney General) v. 714 Railton Avenue, (2014 ONCA MacPherson) and see also: AG v. $4,067,685.10 (Canadian Currency), 2014 ONSC 2537 (Vallee) -- If you weren't involved in the crime, your property won't be forfeited even if it was used for crime