Ontario is considering adopting a controversial legal tool that some provinces are using to seize assets believed to have been obtained with the proceeds of crime.
Unexplained wealth orders aim to disrupt money laundering and organized crime by making it easier for law enforcement to seize property suspected of being purchased with ill-gotten gains. An unexplained wealth order, which is issued by a court, requires the owner of the assets in question to explain how they acquired them.
Critics such as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association have argued that the orders infringe on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance by removing the presumption of innocence.
A bold new tool is targeting money laundering. But it may be violating Canadians’ basic rights
The Ontario government launched a public consultation seeking input on a proposal from the Ministry of the Attorney General that the province introduce unexplained wealth orders. Submissions are due Aug. 31.
British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have all adopted unexplained wealth orders, while Saskatchewan has implemented a similar tool.
B.C.’s legislation was inspired by Britain, which introduced the legal tool in 2018 amid growing concern that London’s luxury real estate market had become a haven for dirty money. The orders were nicknamed the “McMafia” orders after a book and television series of the same name.
So far, the B.C. courts have upheld the new tool, although appeals are still possible.
Late last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Neena Sharma granted an unexplained wealth order against Kevin Miller, a Malta resident accused of participating in a multimillion-dollar pump-and-dump scheme involving the stock of Jammin’ Java, a coffee company that used trademarks of the late reggae artist Bob Marley. A pump-and-dump scheme involves driving up the price of a stock by spreading false or misleading information that encourages investors to buy, and then selling it at a much higher price.
Justice Sharma dismissed Mr. Miller’s arguments that the legislation is unconstitutional, and ordered him to explain how he acquired millions of dollars stashed in a Vancouver lawyer’s trust account.
And earlier that year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lindsay LeBlanc issued an unexplained wealth order in a case involving an illegal cannabis growing operation discovered by police responding to a shooting at a home in Vancouver.
Jeffrey Simser, a lawyer and asset forfeiture and anti-money-laundering expert, said the legal decisions put Ontario’s proposal ”on a much firmer constitutional ground."
Mr. Simser, the former director of civil forfeiture at Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, said it’s “well past time” for Ontario to adopt unexplained wealth orders, calling them “necessary.”
However, he added that Ontario is lagging other provinces when it comes to how much it’s recovering through civil asset forfeiture.
For example, civil forfeiture proceedings in B.C. resulted in roughly $20.15-million in total recoveries during fiscal 2024-25, according to an annual report. In Ontario, the value of all forfeitures between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025 was approximately $1.6-million.
Mr. Simser, who was also the first director of a civil asset forfeiture office in Canada, said it’s not enough to introduce unexplained wealth orders without committing the resources to take advantage of the legislation.
“This is a necessary tool, but the Attorney General is going to have to make sure that he puts the right team together to make this work if he wants to see some success, because Ontario’s fallen behind,” Mr. Simser added.
Not all of the unexplained wealth orders sought by B.C.’s Director of Civil Forfeiture have resulted in court orders. In a case involving Michael Patryn, the co-founder of defunct cryptocurrency exchange QuadrigaCX, the province’s Civil Forfeiture Office was granted a default judgment resulting in the forfeiture of $250,200 in cash, 45 gold bars, four luxury watches and several items of expensive jewellery.
B.C.’s Director of Civil Forfeiture filed a claim against Mr. Patryn in 2023, alleging that the goods seized by the RCMP from his safety deposit box at a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce branch in Vancouver are the proceeds of unlawful activity. The director had also filed an application for an unexplained wealth order, which, if granted, would have compelled Mr. Patryn to prove that he had acquired the property through legal means.
Mr. Patryn filed a response to the civil claim, stating that the property had not been obtained through criminal activity and that the police had violated his Charter rights by unlawfully sharing evidence with the civil forfeiture agency. However, he later withdrew his response to the claim, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted a judgment in favour of the director.