Docket: T-1573-13
Citation:
2014 FC 1216
Ottawa, Ontario, December 15, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GABRIEL LILLETHUN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
In 2012, Mr Gabriel Lillethun arrived at Pearson International Airport with $20,000 USD in cash hidden in his clothing and luggage.
He was travelling from Brazil by way of Panama City. At Customs, he declared
that he was not importing currency worth $10,000 or more. An officer of the
Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) searched Mr Lillethun’s belongings and
found numerous bundles of $100 USD bills. The officer asked Mr Lillethun how
many bundles he had. Mr Lillethun said he did not know.
[2]
The officer concluded that there were reasonable
grounds to suspect that the funds may have been the proceeds of crime and
seized them. Mr Lillethun requested a Ministerial review of the seizure and
over the course of several months provided many documents to the CBSA, attempting
to corroborate his claim that the funds came from sales of electronic equipment
and cameras, and were not the proceeds of crime. He said he had failed to
declare the funds because he was concerned about the potential tax consequences
of disclosing unreported income, and the possible loss of income-based disability
benefits for his son.
[3]
A CBSA adjudicator reviewed Mr Lillethun’s
documentation and found that it failed to show a link between the recorded
transactions and the funds Mr Lillethun attempted to bring into Canada. The adjudicator gave Mr Lillethun a number of opportunities to provide better
evidence of the source of the funds but, in the end, she recommended to a
delegate of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that Mr
Lillethun be found to have contravened the obligation to disclose the imported
currency and that the funds be held as forfeit (Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, SC 2000, c 17, ss 12, 29 – see
Annex for provisions cited).
[4]
The Minister’s delegate agreed, and refused to
exercise her discretion to return the funds or to impose a fine in lieu of
forfeiture.
[5]
Mr Lillethun maintains that the Minister’s
delegate unreasonably confirmed the seizure of his money. In particular, he
contends that there was absolutely no evidence that he was engaged in any
unlawful conduct or that the funds were connected in any way to crime. Rather, the
evidence he provided clearly showed, he says, that he had an active business
buying and selling electronic equipment and cameras. He asks me to order the
Minister’s delegate to reconsider the seizure, or to remit some portion of the seized
funds to him.
[6]
I see no basis for concluding that the
Minister’s delegate’s decision was unreasonable. The evidence Mr Lillethun
provided simply did not connect particular transactions with the funds in
question. It showed that he was buying and selling goods, but the source of the
$20,000 he attempted to import was never identified. Therefore, I must dismiss
this application for judicial review.
[7]
The sole issue is whether the Minister’s
delegate’s decision was unreasonable.
A.
The Minister’s Delegate’s Decision
[8]
The delegate found that Mr Lillethun had not
provided any valid reason for failing to report the currency in his possession.
Further, the evidence Mr Lillethun provided, while showing transactions
involving the purchase and sale of goods, did not establish a link between
those transactions and the seized funds.
[9]
In addition, given that Mr Lillethun had concealed
the money in various locations, there were additional grounds for believing
that the source of the funds was not legitimate.
[10]
In the circumstances, the delegate declined to
exercise his discretion to return the forfeited funds.
B.
Was the Minister’s delegate’s decision
unreasonable?
[11]
Mr Lillethun submits that the delegate failed to
give adequate consideration to the evidence showing that the funds derived from
his business of buying and selling equipment.
[12]
I disagree.
[13]
The burden rested on Mr Lillethun to show that
the funds were not the proceeds of crime by establishing a legitimate source of
the funds (Sellathurai v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness), 2008 FCA 255, at paras 49-50). This puts Mr Lillethun in an
unfortunate situation. While he was able to show that he was involved in buying
and selling equipment, his evidence fell short of showing the actual source of
the funds he had tried to import.
[14]
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the
Minister’s delegate’s decision was unreasonable on the evidence.
II.
Conclusion and Disposition
[15]
Mr Lillethun was unable to show that the funds
he brought into Canada had a legitimate source. Therefore, I cannot conclude
that the decision to order the forfeiture of the funds was unreasonable.
Accordingly, I would dismiss this application for judicial review, with costs.
Email this Content