General) v. $104,877 in U.S. Currency (In Rem) (2016), 129 O.R.
(3d) 312,  O.J. No. 453 (C.A.), at para. 5:
We conclude that, in rejecting the appellant’s submissions, the application
judge made no error. She correctly applied the two-step process mandated
by the Civil Remedies Act: first, the Attorney General of Ontario must
satisfy the court that the property is either the proceeds of unlawful activity
or the instrument of unlawful activity; and then, second, the respondent
may seek protection from forfeiture under s. 3(3) or s. 8(3) as either a “legit-
imate owner” or a “responsible owner”.
 In this case, as the appellant appears to accept, there was
no evidence as to who was the legitimate owner of the moneys.
Consequently, s. 3(3) cannot be relied upon to give the court
authority to order a portion of the funds forfeited, and a portion
not forfeited, especially since the application judge made an
express finding, on the record that was before him, that he was
not satisfied that Ms. Rawana was the legitimate owner of any
of the seized moneys (reasons, at para. 27).
 A further problem flowed from the absence of evidence on
this issue, and that was that there was no evidence, before the
application judge, that an order returning the sum of $4,000 to
Ms. Rawana was “necessary to protect the legitimate owner’s
interest in the property”. This problem was recognized by the
application judge when he said, in the penultimate paragraph of
his reasons (para. 38):
In this case, the Attorney General asks this Court to approve a settlement
returning $4,000 to Rawana, notwithstanding the Attorney General’s sub-
missions on the merits of its Application. The parties have not explained
why $4,000, as opposed to any other amount, should be returned to Rawana.
Such evidence might have informed the application of one of the grounds or
exceptions under the Act. Without such evidence, returning $4,000 appears
to be arbitrary and not rationally connected to the requirements of the Act.
 The appellant complains that the application judge did
not alert him to any concern regarding the lack of evidence. That
is not surprising, since the appellant took the position that none
of the exceptions under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 were applicable in this case and, thus, chose not to provide any evidence on
these points. One would hardly expect, in those circumstances,
for the application judge to revisit that issue. In any event, it
is not the obligation of the court to instruct, or tutor, a party
regarding the evidence that they should be putting before the
court. It is the parties who bear the responsibility for adducing
the necessary evidence, and the court adjudicates on the evidence as presented. In this case, it is the Attorney General of
Ontario who bears the onus, or burden, to satisfy the court, on
evidence, that the requirements of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001