those circumstances, forfeiture of his entire interest in the property as of the date of sentencing some five years later would be
disproportionate under s. 19.1(3) of the CDSA. He argued that
forfeiture should be limited to, at most, the value of his equity in
the property as of the date of the restraint order, which he calculated at about $55,000.
 The sentencing judge disagreed. She noted that while the
home was not used for a grow operation, it was evident from the
equipment, drugs and money found within that preparations for
trafficking took place in the home. This was not a case where
any person was residing in the home. In the end, the sentencing
judge concluded [at para. 50]:
While the forfeiture order sought has a financial impact on Mr. Rafilovich,
when this is measured against the quantity of the drugs and the evidence of
commercialism in these offences, I am not persuaded that there is any dis-
proportionality in the forfeiture of the entire value of Mr. Rafilovich’s inter-
est in the condominium.”
The sentencing judge fixed the amount of Mr. Rafilovich’s 50 per
cent interest in the condominium unit at $100,000 and ordered
forfeiture of that amount.
 Mr. Rafilovitch appeals from this decision, renewing his
argument on appeal that forfeiture should have been limited
A. Statutory Background: Proceeds of Crime
(1) Statutory provisions
 Section 462.3(1) of the Code defines “proceeds of crime”
broadly as any “property, benefit or advantage” obtained or
derived, directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of
a designated offence.
 Section 462.37(1) provides for a mandatory order of forfeiture of property that is proceeds of crime where the designated
offence was committed in relation to that property.
 Section 462.37(3) provides that if the conditions are met
for an order for forfeiture of property, but the property cannot be
made subject to a forfeiture order, for example, because it cannot
be located or has been transferred to a third party, a court “may
order the offender to pay a fine”.
 Section 462.37(4) mandates a term of imprisonment in
default of payment of the fine in lieu of forfeiture, based on the
amount of the fine. In this case, the fine in lieu of forfeiture
would be between 12 and 18 months.