Appeal court leaves most of the buried cash with the Crown and returns $15,000

By NetNewsLedger Staff
Category: National News | Courts 101

THUNDER BAY – LEGAL – A man from Thunder Bay has lost a 16-year legal battle to get back more than $1.2 million that police took from his home during a search in 2009. The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a 2023 decision that gives most of the money to the Crown and returns $15,000. This ends a long-running case that went from criminal court to civil forfeiture and back through the appeal system.

A Quick Look at the Case

The search and the money in 2009

When Thunder Bay police searched Marcel Breton’s house for an illegal gun, they found drugs, drug paraphernalia, and cash in several places:

There are tubs under the garage with $1,235,620 in them, $32,000 in other parts of the garage, and $15,000 hidden in the living room’s in-floor heating ducts

2010s—Criminal cases

At first, Breton was found guilty. He appealed and got a new trial after arguing that the search was illegal. He was found not guilty at the new trial, which ended the criminal case.

Trial for civil forfeiture in 2023

In a different civil case, a trial judge said that Breton didn’t legally own most of the money and told the Crown to take it. The judge made it clear:

The strange way of storing huge amounts of money buried under a garage;

The prevalence of $20 bills, a denomination linked by expert testimony to drug proceeds;

The cash being close to drugs and things used for trafficking; and

Proof that the tax authority didn’t get any income reports from 2001 to 2008.

The court did give back the $15,000 that was found in the heating ducts, though.

This was because the bundles were not in the same denominations as the garage cash, and the record did not rule out a legal source for that smaller amount.

The appeal in 2025

The Ontario Court of Appeal turned down Breton’s appeal and upheld the split outcome: most of the money was lost, but $15,000 was returned.

Why the Money Case Didn’t End with an Acquittal

This result depends on the difference between the standards of proof for criminal and civil cases:

To convict someone of a crime, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The balance of probabilities is a lower burden of proof used in civil forfeiture of cash thought to be crime-related proceeds.

The Crown can still go after civil forfeiture even if the criminal charges are dropped, stayed, or the person is found not guilty. This is because the two tracks are legally separate. The civil court used the way the money was stored, its denominations, and its proximity to drugs to figure out that most of it was not legally owned.

What the Appeal Court Stressed

Different burdens, different results: The court made it clear again that a criminal acquittal doesn’t stop civil recovery on a balance of probabilities.

Respect for trial judges: appeals courts don’t often look at evidence again. Unless there is a clear and significant mistake, factual findings, like conclusions based on storage methods, denominations, and context, are valid.

Context is important: Signs like putting cash in containers, having a lot of $20 bills, being found with drugs, and not reporting any income can all point to the fact that the cash is related to crime.

Partial returns are possible: If the evidence doesn’t meet the civil standard for a certain bundle, courts may give back some money, like they did with the $15,000 from the vents.

What a 1994 Ontario Appeal Decision Has to Do with It

For a long time, a 1994 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal has been the law in cash-seizure cases. It brings out three themes that are important in the Breton ruling:

Circumstantial evidence is important in civil cases. If cash is found near drugs, courts may assume that the person who had it was illegally possessing it based on how and where it was hidden and the denominations involved.

Standards are important: Civil courts use the balance of probabilities, which means that the results can be different from those in criminal cases, which use the higher reasonable doubt standard.

Appellate restraint: If the trial judge carefully lays out the facts and explains the inferences, appeal courts don’t step in very often.

These ideas help us understand why the 2025 appeal court mostly kept the 2023 trial decision the same.

What This Means for People Who Follow Court Cases?

Police powers vs. property rights: Civil courts can still look at whether money is likely to be related to a crime, even if the criminal case fails.

How cash is stored is important; burial, bundling, and denomination patterns can all be strong signals.

There are mixed results: Courts can take most of the cash and give some back, depending on the proof for each stash.

Lost to the Crown: More than $1.26 million

Back to Breton: $15,000

The ruling ends a case that began with a search in 2009 and went through criminal appeals, a retrial, and a civil forfeiture battle. This shows how Canada’s civil forfeiture system works with, but not with, criminal law.