CONTROVERSIAL LAW USED TO SEIZE PROPERTY

Hamilton police and the province have again used a relatively
untested piece of legislation to seize property connected to alleged
drug activity in Hamilton.

This time, the controversial Civil Remedies Act has netted the
province around $650,000 in property and cash linked to a marijuana
grow operation busted more than three years ago.

The chain of events that led to the seizures started with a search
warrant executed at a Stoney Creek home on Dec. 1, 2004, for theft of hydro.

Police seized 291 marijuana plants at the Mistywood Drive house and
arrested a couple. According to court documents, their three children
were taken into the custody of children's aid.

Police then obtained a proceeds-of-crime search warrant for an
Ancaster residence linked to the pair.

In addition to the two homes, valued at $600,000, police also seized
close to $30,000 in cash and bank drafts from a safety deposit box
owned by the couple.

After criminal charges against one of the two were withdrawn, the
proceeds-of-crime investigation was threatened. This prompted police
to turn to the Civil Remedies Act, which focuses on property rather
than the individual.

The legislation allows the province to confiscate property used in
crime or obtained from the proceeds of crime without any criminal
charges or convictions.

On Feb. 14, the Ontario Superior Court issued a forfeiture order
after finding the properties and assets of the couple to be proceeds
and instruments of criminal activity.

Vice and drug Detective Bob Gauvin blamed the three-year delay on the
property owners' lawyer "challenging the proceedings throughout."

"It was a hard-fought battle," said Gauvin.

The province used the law in 2006 to seize the downtown Sandbar
Tavern. The law also was used to seize the owners' home.

[sidebar]

Civil Remedies Act

Ontario's Civil Remedies Act allows the attorney general to ask a
civil court for an order to freeze and take possession of any
property that is a proceed or instrument of unlawful activity.

Properties can include assets such as real estate, cars and cash.

The legislation focuses on the connection between property and
unlawful activity. It does not require criminal charges or convictions.

Forfeited funds are deposited into an account to be redistributed to
victims of crime.

Critics of the 2001 legislation have said the act's definition of
criminal activity is too broad and potentially threatens constitutional rights.