T‑3‑05
2006 FC 182
Van Phat Hoang (Plaintiff)
v.
Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Defendants)
Indexed as: Hoang v. M.N.R. (F.C.)
Federal Court, Kelen J.—Toronto, February 7; Ottawa, February 13, 2006.
Customs and Excise — Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act — Motion for summary judgment seeking determination of plaintiff’s action under s. 30, appealing Minister’s decision not to return forfeited funds, since only genuine issue for trial question of law — Concept of bringing goods into country physical act, not requiring intention to import — Reporting requirement under Act, s. 12 analogous to duty to report imported goods under Customs Act — Appeal right under Act, s. 30 discussed — Motion allowed.
Construction of Statutes — Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, ss. 12, 30 — Motion for summary judgment seeking determination of plaintiff’s action under s. 30 appealing Minister’s decision not to return forfeited funds — Terms “exportation”, “importation” in s. 12 interpreted — S. 12 not requiring intention to import — Obiter: s. 30 not requiring two appeals to Federal Court with respect to different parts of same decision.
Administrative Law — Statutory Appeals — Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, s. 30 permitting person who requested decision of Minister under s. 25 to appeal “the decision” by way of action to Federal Court — Not intended to require two appeals with respect to different parts of same decision.
This was a motion for summary judgment seeking determination of the plaintiff’s action under section 30 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Act) appealing the Minister’s decision not to return the forfeited funds, since the only genuine issue for trial was a question of law. The plaintiff was driving across Canada when he got lost and took a wrong turn towards the United States border. He turned his vehicle around after crossing into U.S. territory but before going through the U.S. border checkpoint. At the Canadian border checkpoint, the plaintiff indicated to customs officers that he was not in possession of money or monetary instruments equal to or greater than C$10,000. A subsequent search of his vehicle revealed C$70,000 in cash hidden in the tailgate liner of the pickup truck. Because the failure to report the import of money or monetary instruments equal to or greater than C$10,000 to customs officers is an offence under section 12 of the Act, the cash was seized as forfeit under section 18. The plaintiff applied to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the return of the funds under section 25 of the Act but the Minister deemed the forfeiture justified by the Act. The issue was whether the obligation to report the importation of currency with a value equal to or greater than C$10,000 arises when an individual does not have the subjective intention to import this currency.
Held, the motion should be allowed.
The issue of summary judgment is governed by rules 213 to 219 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Federal Court may grant summary judgment if the only genuine issue for trial is a question of law which is to be decided on agreed upon evidence.
The only genuine issue for trial was a question of law, i.e. the interpretation of section 12 of the Act. Because the word “importation” is defined neither in the Act nor in the Regulations, Parliament intended for the ordinary meaning of this word to apply. Based on the dictionary definitions, the concept of bringing goods into a country is a physical act and does not require an intention to import on behalf of the actor.
The reporting requirement under section 12 of the Act is analogous to the duty to report imported goods under section 12 of the Customs Act. Case law under section 12 of the Customs Act has held that this Act is contravened when an incorrect declaration is made on behalf of the importer even if that error was made with a lack of intent to mislead customs. An inadvertent error in reporting imported goods does not affect the validity of a seizure of those goods. Moreover section 3 of the Act requires the reporting of the importation of currency and monetary instruments. The tracking system is obligatory in order to achieve this purpose. Therefore, section 12 of the Act is not dependent upon an individual’s intention to import.
Finally, by way of obiter, the appeal to the Federal Court under subsection 30(1) of the Act is not so clear as to conclude that the appeal is limited to only one part of the Minister’s decision (whether section 12 was contravened) or that two appeals to the Federal Court are intended with respect to the same decision (whether Minister had reasonable grounds to suspect that the seized currency was proceeds of crime). The appeal right under section 30 is written in reasonably broad language and provides that the person who requested a decision of the Minister under section 25 may appeal “the decision” by way of an action to the Federal Court. While the request for the Minister’s decision pertains to whether subsection 12(1) of the Act was contravened, the decision which may be appealed is made under sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Act. Applying a modern approach to statutory construction, this interpretation meets the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.
statutes and regulations judicially
considered
Cross‑border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002‑412, s. 2.
Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, s. 12.
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F‑7, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27).
Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, rr. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2), 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219.
Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I‑21, s. 12.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 48), 3 (as am. idem, s. 50), 12 (as am. idem, s. 54), 18 (as am. idem, s. 134), 25 (as am. idem, s. 61), 26, 27 (as am. idem, s. 62), 28, 29, 30 (as am. idem, s. 139).
cases judicially considered
considered:
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; (1998), 36 O.R. (3d) 418; 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193; 50 C.B.R. (3d) 163; 33 C.C.E.L. (2d) 173; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; Pfizer Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs & Excise, [1973] F.C. 3; (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 537 (C.A.); Dokaj v. M.N.R., [2006] 2 F.C.R. 152; 2005 FC 1437.
distinguished:
MacNeil Estate v. Canada (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs), [2004] 3 F.C.R. 3; (2004), 316 N.R. 349; 2004 FCA 50.
referred to:
Bell v. The Queen, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 471; (1983), 3 D.L.R. (4th) 385; 8 C.C.C. (3d) 97; 36 C.R. (3d) 289; 50 N.R. 172; He v. Canada (2000), 182 F.T.R. 85; 4 T.T.R. (2d) 253 (F.C.T.D.); Marstar Canada Inc. v. Canada (1998), 158 F.T.R. 226 (F.C.T.D.); R. v. Letarte, [1981] 2 F.C. 76; (1980), 121 D.L.R. (3d) 508 (C.A.).
authors cited
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999, “exportation”, “import”, “importation”.
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004, “import”.
Driedger, Elmer A. Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983.
MOTION for summary judgment seeking the determination of the plaintiff’s action under section 30 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act appealing the Minister’s decision made under section 25 not to return the forfeited funds, since the only genuine issue for trial was a question of law. Motion allowed.
appearances:
Harald A. Mattson for plaintiff.
Elizabeth N. Kikuchi for defendants.
solicitors of record:
Harald A. Mattson, Kitchener, for plaintiff.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for defendants.
The following are the reasons for order and order rendered in English by
[1]Kelen J.: This is a motion by the defendants for summary judgment seeking determination of the plaintiff’s action as the only genuine issue for trial is a question of law.
[2]This question of law requires the interpretation of subsection 12(1) [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 54] and paragraph 12(3)(a) [as am. idem] of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 [s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 48)] (the Act) which reads as follows:
12. (1) Every person or entity referred to in subsection (3) shall report to an officer, in accordance with the regulations, the importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the prescribed amount.
. . .
(3) Currency or monetary instruments shall be reported under subsection (1)
(a) in the case of currency or monetary instruments in the actual possession of a person arriving in or departing from Canada, or that form part of their baggage if they and their baggage are being carried on board the same conveyance, by that person or, in prescribed circumstances, by the person in charge of the conveyance;
To be determined in this case is whether the obligation to report the importation of currency with a value equal to or greater than C$10,000 arises when an individual does not have the subjective intention to import this currency.
Facts
[3]On March 13, 2004, the plaintiff Van Phat Hoang was driving across Canada. He was lost and took a wrong turn towards the United States border at Pigeon River, Ontario. The plaintiff’s vehicle turned around after crossing into United States territory but before going through the U.S. border checkpoint.
[4]Upon arriving at the Canadian border checkpoint, the plaintiff was questioned by Canadian customs officers. When asked whether he was in possession of money or monetary instruments equal to or greater than C$10,000, the plaintiff responded in the negative. A subsequent search of the plaintiff’s vehicle revealed C$70,000 in cash, which was packaged in plastic bags and hidden in the tailgate liner of the pickup truck.
[5]Failing to report the import of money or monetary instruments equal to or greater than C$10,000 to customs officers is an offence under section 12 of the Act. Pursuant to section 18 [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 134] of the Act, the cash was seized by the customs officers as forfeit.
[6]The plaintiff applied to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the return of the funds under section 25 [as am. idem, s. 61] of the Act. Section 25 reads:
25. A person from whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under section 18, or the lawful owner of the currency or monetary instruments, may within 90 days after the date of the seizure request a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was contravened, by giving notice in writing to the officer who seized the currency or monetary instruments or to an officer at the customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place.
The Minister’s Decision under Appeal
[7]By decision dated October 5, 2004, the Minister informed the plaintiff that the $70,000 would not be returned to him and that the forfeiture was deemed to be justified by the Act “[i]n light of the amount of money found, the manner of its transportation and packaging, as well as the lack of documentary evidence establishing its legitimate/legal origin.”
[8]The plaintiff appealed the Minister’s decision under section 30 [as am. idem, s. 139] of the Act, which provides for an appeal of the Minister’s decision under section 25 by way of an action in the Federal Court.
Relevant Legislation
[9]The relevant statutes are:
1. the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17; and
2. the Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c.1.
The relevant sections are set out in Appendix A.
[10]Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Cross‑border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002‑412 (the Regulations), the prescribed amount referred to in subsection 12(1) is C$10,000. See Appendix A for this section of the Regulations.
The Plaintiff’s Argument
[11]The plaintiff states that he was not aware that he had left Canada and was not told by Canadian customs officers that he had done so. He argues that he did not intend to cross the border and leave Canada thus he neither exported nor imported the money in question.
[12]The plaintiff urges this Court to view section 12 within the context and purpose of the Act, which is to combat international money laundering. It is submitted that the aim of the Act is not to detain persons who cross the border accidentally without the intention of leaving Canada. An element of intention is said to be necessary for there to be exportation or importation of goods.
[13]The plaintiff relies upon the following definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Group, 1999) which read:
import, n 1. A product brought into a country from a foreign country where it originated.
importation. The bringing of goods in a country from another country.
The plaintiff submits that he did not import the cash because the cash was not brought into Canada “from a foreign country where it originated.” The cash never entered the U.S. and never came to Canada from the U.S.
The Defendants’ Argument
[14]The defendants submit that an individual’s intention to cross the border is not relevant. The obligation to report under section 12 arises whenever a person leaves or enters Canada with currency or monetary instruments in excess of C$10,000, regardless of their intention. This interpretation of section 12 is said to be in accord with the ordinary meanings of the words “exportation” and “importation” and with the context and the purpose of the Act.
[15]The defendants rely on the modern approach to statutory interpretation, as set out in Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 [at paragraph 21]:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
[16]The ordinary meanings of exportation and importation are as follows, according to Black’s Law Dictionary: “exportation” is “[t]he act of sending or carrying goods from one country to another”, and importation is “[t]he bringing of goods into a country from another country.” The Supreme Court of Canada’s construction of the word “import” (in the context of a drug case Bell v. The Queen, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 471) was that to import into Canada means to bring a good from anywhere outside Canada to anywhere inside Canada. This necessarily includes the act of crossing the border.
[17]When interpreting federal statutes, the defendants submit that the Court must bear in mind section 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I‑21, which says that every enactment is to be given large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objectives.
[18]The purpose of the Act is to track suspicious financial transactions and the cross‑border movement of large amounts of currency. It does not restrict the amount of money that may be brought into or taken out of Canada or render such a practice illegal. It simply creates a mandatory reporting obligation for the import or export of sums equal to or greater than the designated amount, which currently is C$10,000.
[19]If an individual imports or exports currency or monetary instruments in excess of this amount, there is no consequence if the act is reported and the individual is able to account for the funds. If an individual fails to make such a report, a customs officer may seize the money as forfeit pursuant to section 18 of the Act. The seized funds may be returned to their owner upon payment of a penalty, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the money is proceeds of crime, whereupon the funds will be held as forfeit by the Crown.
[20]In the submission of the defendants, this reporting requirement is mandatory, automatic, and not dependent upon an individual’s intention. Including an intention requirement would result in ineffective detection of cross‑border movements of money. Parliament does not intend such a consequence; it is unreasonable to interpret a statute in a way which defeats its purpose.
[21]Further guidance is said to be obtained from the interpretation of the reporting requirement under the Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, under which an importer must account for the quantity and value of goods and pay the associated duties and taxes. Failure to meet this obligation results in a penalty, no matter the source of the error or the intention of the importer. The lack of intent to mislead or the presence of an inadvertent error do not affect the validity of a seizure: see He v. Canada (2000), 182 F.T.R. 85 (F.C.T.D.). It is submitted that the reporting obligation under the Act is analogous, and the intention of the individual is irrelevant. Failing to report in accordance with the Act is said to be a contravention of the Act regardless of whether the individual had the intention to export or import the currency or monetary instrument.
The Test for Granting Summary Judgment
[22]The issue of summary judgment is governed by Rules 213-219 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106 [r. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004-283, s. 2)]. Of particular import in this case is rule 216, which provides in part:
216. (1) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence, the Court shall grant summary judgment accordingly.
(2) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court is satisfied that the only genuine issue is
. . .
(b) a question of law, the Court may determine the question and grant summary judgment accordingly.
(3) Where on a motion for summary judgment the Court decides that there is a genuine issue with respect to a claim or defence, the Court may nevertheless grant summary judgment in favour of any party, either on an issue or generally, if the Court is able on the whole of the evidence to find the facts necessary to decide the questions of fact and law.
[23]This Court may grant summary judgment if the only genuine issue for trial is a question of law which is to be decided on agreed upon evidence. The Federal Court of Appeal has limited the circumstances in which a judge may grant summary judgment for fear of rendering decisions which are unfair on the evidence: see MacNeil Estate v. Canada (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs), [2004] 3 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.A.). Because this case has no contested facts and turns solely on a question of law, the caution in MacNeil does not apply.
Analysis
[24]The facts of this case are not in dispute. The sole issue is a question of law. The plaintiff agrees. Pursuant to subsection 216(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, I have determined that the only genuine issue for trial is a question of law, i.e. the interpretation of section 12 of the Act.
[25]The word “importation” is defined neither in the Act nor in the Regulations. This means that Parliament intended for the ordinary meaning of this word to apply.
[26]The meaning of the phrase “the importation . . . of currency” in subsection 12(1) of the Act is a question of law to be determined by the Court with the aid of dictionaries. See Pfizer Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1973] F.C. 3 (C.A.) per Jackett C.J., at page 7:
In legal theory, as I understand the law, the general rule is that a word in a document such as a statute or order in council having the effect of law is to be given its ordinary or popular meaning according to the context and that meaning is a question of law to be determined by the Court with the aid of dictionaries and other legitimate aids of construction.
[27]The plaintiff submits that the word “importation” means the intended bringing into Canada of cash from another country. With respect, the Court does not agree. In determining the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word “importation” used by Canadians, the Court has referred to the definition provided in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed., (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines the verb “import” as:
. . . to bring in (especially foreign goods or services) to a country.
(The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not provide a definition for “importation”.)
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “importation” as:
The bringing of goods into a country from another country.
The definitions speak of the concept of bringing goods into a country. This is a physical act. I do not agree with the plaintiff that these meanings require an intention on behalf of the actor.
[28]The reporting requirement under section 12 of the Act is analogous to the duty to report imported goods under section 12 of the Customs Act. The jurisprudence under section 12 of the Customs Act has held that this Act is contravened when an incorrect declaration is made on behalf of the importer even if that error was made with a lack of intent to mislead Customs. An inadvertent error in reporting imported goods does not affect the validity of a seizure of those goods: See He v. Canada, per Pinard J., at paragraph 8; Marstar Canada Inc. v. Canada (1998), 158 F.T.R. 226 (F.C.T.D.), per Denault J., at paragraph 4 and R. v. Letarte, [1981] 2 F.C. 76 (F.C.A.), at page 76.
[29]A purposive analysis further supports the defendants’ position in this matter. The plaintiff states that the purpose of the Act is to combat international money laundering. This is not the only purpose. As set out in section 3 [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 50], the Act requires the reporting of the importation of currency and monetary instruments. To achieve this purpose, the tracking system is obligatory.
[30]I conclude that section 12 of the Act is not dependent upon an individual’s intention to import. The plaintiff has no other defence for his failure to report the currency. Accordingly, I must allow the motion for summary judgment.
Obiter
[31]The plaintiff has not challenged in this appeal whether the Minister had reasonable grounds to suspect that the seized currency is proceeds of crime. This is also part of the Minister’s decision. In Dokaj v. M.N.R., [2006] 2 F.C.R. 152 (F.C.), this Court held that that part of the decision under this Act must be challenged by way of judicial review under section 18.1 [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F‑7 [s. 1 (as am. idem, s. 14)], and cannot be challenged by way of this action under section 30 of the Act. The Court held that this dichotomy in the appeal procedure is “both awkward and inconvenient” and “unfair”: see paragraph 39 of Dokaj.
[32]I wish to state in obiter that the appeal to the Federal Court under subsection 30(1) of the Act is not so clear that I would conclude that Parliament intended two appeals to the Federal Court with respect to the same decision, or that Parliament would have provided a party with the right to appeal the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court, yet limited that appeal to only one part of the decision.
[33]For example, in the case at bar, the decision of the Minister was under section 27 [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 62] of the Act, namely that there had been a contravention of section 12, and under section 29, namely that the seized currency in the amount of $70,000 is held as forfeit. The appeal right under section 30 is written in reasonably broad language. It provides that the person who requested a decision of the Minister under section 25 may appeal “the decision” by way of an action to the Federal Court. While the request for the decision is as to whether subsection 12(1) of the Act was contravened, the decision which may be appealed is made under sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Act, with the right of an appeal of that decision under section 30. Applying a modern approach to statutory construction, my interpretation meets the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament. A narrow interpretation would be, as the Court said in Dokaj, “awkward”, “inconvenient” and “unfair”. I cannot conclude that Parliament would have intended such a result, and I do not think the language of section 30 is so clear as to dictate such a result.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This motion by the defendants for summary judgment is allowed so that this action is dismissed with costs.
APPENDIX A
1. Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17
12. (1) Every person or entity referred to in subsection (3) shall report to an officer, in accordance with the regulations, the importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the prescribed amount.
(2) A person or entity is not required to make a report under subsection (1) in respect of an activity if the prescribed conditions are met in respect of the person, entity or activity, and if the person or entity satisfies an officer that those conditions have been met.
(3) Currency or monetary instruments shall be reported under subsection (1)
(a) in the case of currency or monetary instruments in the actual possession of a person arriving in or departing from Canada, or that form part of their baggage if they and their baggage are being carried on board the same conveyance, by that person or, in prescribed circumstances, by the person in charge of the conveyance;
(b) in the case of currency or monetary instruments imported into Canada by courier or as mail, by the exporter of the currency or monetary instruments or, on receiving notice under subsection 14(2), by the importer;
(c) in the case of currency or monetary instruments exported from Canada by courier or as mail, by the exporter of the currency or monetary instruments;
(d) in the case of currency or monetary instruments, other than those referred to in paragraph (a) or imported or exported as mail, that are on board a conveyance arriving in or departing from Canada, by the person in charge of the conveyance; and
(e) in any other case, by the person on whose behalf the currency or monetary instruments are imported or exported.
(4) If a report is made in respect of currency or monetary instruments, the person arriving in or departing from Canada with the currency or monetary instruments shall
(a) answer truthfully any questions that the officer asks with respect to the information required to be contained in the report; and
(b) on request of an officer, present the currency or monetary instruments that they are carrying or transporting, unload any conveyance or part of a conveyance or baggage and open or unpack any package or container that the officer wishes to examine.
(5) Officers shall send the reports they receive under subsection (1) to the Centre.
. . .
18. (1) If an officer believes on reasonable grounds that subsection 12(1) has been contravened, the officer may seize as forfeit the currency or monetary instruments.
(2) The officer shall, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, return the seized currency or monetary instruments to the individual from whom they were seized or to the lawful owner unless the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the currency or monetary instruments are proceeds of crime within the meaning of subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or funds for use in the financing of terrorist activities.
(3) An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments under subsection (1) shall
(a) if they were not imported or exported as mail, give the person from whom they were seized written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30;
(b) if they were imported or exported as mail and the address of the exporter is known, give the exporter written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30; and
(c) take the measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to give notice of the seizure to any person whom the officer believes on reasonable grounds is entitled to make an application under section 32 in respect of the currency or monetary instruments.
(4) The service of a notice under paragraph (3)(b) is sufficient if it is sent by registered mail addressed to the exporter.
. . .
25. A person from whom currency or monetary instruments were seized under section 18, or the lawful owner of the currency or monetary instruments, may within 90 days after the date of the seizure request a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) was contravened, by giving notice in writing to the officer who seized the currency or monetary instruments or to an officer at the customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place.
26. (1) If a decision of the Minister is requested under section 25, the Commissioner shall without delay serve on the person who requested it written notice of the circumstances of the seizure in respect of which the decision is requested.
(2) The person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) may, within 30 days after the notice is served, furnish any evidence in the matter that they desire to furnish.
27. (1) Within 90 days after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection 26(2), the Minister shall decide whether subsection 12(1) was contravened.
(2) If charges are laid with respect to a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence in respect of the currency or monetary instruments seized, the Minister may defer making a decision but shall make it in any case no later than 30 days after the conclusion of all court proceedings in respect of those charges.
(3) The Minister shall, without delay after making a decision, serve on the person who requested it a written notice of the decision together with the reasons for it.
28. If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was not contravened, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall, on being informed of the Minister’s decision, return the penalty that was paid, or the currency or monetary instruments or an amount of money equal to their value at the time of the seizure, as the case may be.
29. (1) If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was contravened, the Minister shall, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister may determine,
(a) decide that the currency or monetary instruments or, subject to subsection (2), an amount of money equal to their value on the day the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is informed of the decision, be returned, on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount or without penalty;
(b) decide that any penalty or portion of any penalty that was paid under subsection 18(2) be remitted; or
(c) subject to any order made under section 33 or 34, confirm that the currency or monetary instruments are forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to a decision of the Minister under paragraph (a) or (b) on being informed of it.
(2) The total amount paid under paragraph (1)(a) shall, if the currency or monetary instruments were sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized Property Management Act, not exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition, if any, less any costs incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the currency or monetary instruments.
30. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25 may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant.
(2) The Federal Courts Act and the rules made under that Act that apply to ordinary actions apply to actions instituted under subsection (1) except as varied by special rules made in respect of such actions.
(3) The Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to the decision of the Court on being informed of it.
(4) If the currency or monetary instruments were sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized Property Management Act, the total amount that can be paid under subsection (3) shall not exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition, if any, less any costs incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the currency or monetary instruments.
2. Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1
12. (1) Subject to this section, all goods that are imported shall, except in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be reported at the nearest customs office designated for that purpose that is open for business.
3. Cross‑border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002‑412
2. (1) For the purposes of reporting the importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments of a certain value under subsection 12(1) of the Act, the prescribed amount is $10,000.
(2) The prescribed amount is in Canadian dollars or its equivalent in a foreign currency, based on
(a) the official conversion rate of the Bank of Canada as published in the Bank of Canada’s Daily Memorandum of Exchange Rates that is in effect at the time of importation or exportation; or
(b) if no official conversion rate is set out in that publication for that currency, the conversion rate that the person or entity would use for that currency in the normal course of business at the time of the importation or exportation.