and can be presumed to act in accordance with the terms and
the spirit of this order.
 For these reasons, the request for additional relief is denied.
 Accordingly, for these reasons, an order will go as follows:
(a) The order of Madam Justice Carpenter-Gunn dated May 13,
2006 is set aside.
(b) The respondents shall submit to being examined for discovery individually, outside the presence of each other.
(c) On consent, the examinations for discovery of the respondents shall take place before the appellants. These examinations shall be conducted one after the other if possible.
 With respect to costs, the appellant did not file a costs
outline. As the successful party, the appellant is entitled to costs
but only on a partial indemnity scale. The motion judge gave the
respondents costs in the amount of $2,300. The costs of the leave
application were reserved to this court.
 The respondents’ cost outline totalled approximately
$8,700 for fees and disbursements, inclusive of HST, for the
leave and the appeal. The appellant seeks $3,500 in costs for the
leave application and $7,500 for the appeal, which the respondents submits is too high.
 The outcome of the motion and this appeal was not predictable given the divergence of the authorities on this issue. In
my view, the appellant is entitled to costs in the amount of
$10,000, all inclusive.
Attorney General of Ontario v. $29,900 in Canadian
Currency (in Rem)
[Indexed as: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $29,900 in Canadian Currency
2017 ONSC 2003
Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Sachs, Nordheimer and
Gilmore JJ. March 30, 2017
Forfeiture — Civil forfeiture — Relief from forfeiture — Police seizing
$29,900 in cash found in suitcase in R’s driveway — R failing to establish