Funds were seized from a Somali man who was trying to leave an area where gunshots had been heard. Although he did not appear at the hearing, the court refused to accept the Crown’s hearsay and speculative evidence as grounds for concluding that the funds were proceeds of crime or to be used for crime. The court ordered the money returned to the young man.
[28] The fact that this is an in rem proceeding does not dispense the Attorney General with providing admissible and credible evidence from qualified witnesses to discharge its burden. As a general rule, it is better to file first hand evidence of material elements of the case if available rather than relying on hearsay and other derivative evidence. Opinions offered without attribution of their source on matters that are relevant or even central to the application cannot be given significant weight.
Attorney General of Ontario v $8,740 In Canadian Currency, 2016 ONSC 3773 (Dunphy J.)