" The issue in this case largely revolves around the interpretation of the term “actual possession” in paragraph 12(3)(a). The plaintiff essentially contends that it should mean ownership, while the defendant says it simply means physical possession.
" The same difficulty does not arise with actual possession. It is a very simple concept and there is little potential for travellers to confuse whether they have $10,000 or more on their person or in their luggage. It is also much easier to enforce. The traveller can simply be searched and if the officer finds $10,000 or more, he or she can seize the funds and penalize the traveller. The officer does not need to complicate that by making credibility findings or by conducting further investigations into the source or ownership of the funds. Therefore, the distinction of which the plaintiff complains is quite a sensible one from an enforcement perspective and it advances the overall objectives of the Act. As such, there is no reason to depart from the plain language of paragraph 12(3)(a) and read into it an exception for joint owners travelling together."
See Wise v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC (O'Keefe)