NEW FORFEITURE ACT 'OUTRAGEOUS END RUN' AROUND LEGAL RIGHTS

As the provincial government gears up to use its new Civil Forfeiture
Act, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is decrying the legislation
as an attack on the rights of British Columbians.

The law, which came into force April 20, enables the province to
seize property, goods or cash deemed by a civil court judge to have
been gained illegally or used in the commission of an illegal act.

If seized, property such as cars, boats and houses can be liquidated,
with the proceeds going to the province.

Civil Liberties Association policy director Micheal Vonn said the law
is a B.C. government attempt to circumvent the Charter of Rights "by
recharacterizing what we would consider essentially criminal
procedures as civil."

It will result in a lower standard of proof required to seize assets
and also potentially limit the rights of individuals to legal
representation, Vonn said. She said even people who support the
concept of this law might be concerned that somebody's assets can now
be seized without a single criminal or provincial statute charge
being laid against the individual.

"How could this be anything other than an outrageous end run around a
person's charter rights?" Vonn said.

Solicitor General John Les is on vacation and unavailable for comment
on the new law until September.

Civil Forfeiture Branch deputy director Steve Ing, who was seconded
from the Victoria Police Department, said the office is already
working on more than a half-dozen cases under the new act, but hasn't
actually filed one in court yet.

Lawyers employed by the government's legal services branch have been
assigned to the office. Ing said the office will typically act on
information from police or another regulatory government agency. If
the office determines through its own review it has a case for civil
seizure, it will then file an application in B.C. Supreme Court for a
civil judgment against the property.

A judge will decide through a trial whether the government has proven
its case. That decision will be based on the civil standard of a
"balance of probabilities" rather than the more stringent criminal
standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

While the case proceeds, the government can also seek an interim
preservation order, which freezes the assets.

Vonn said there are several problems with the legislation. There is
no sound reason for it, she said, because a federal proceeds-of-crime
law already exists. But this bill gives B.C. control over seized
assets rather than Ottawa. "This is the province getting their foot
in the door on collecting some of these proceeds for themselves," Vonn said.

Ing said seized assets will be put into a special account and used
for crime prevention, compensating eligible victims, and remediating
property damage, but Vonn said there is nothing in the law stopping
this money from being put into general government revenue.

Vonn said the bill is also "over-broad in a number of ways" including
the way it defines property that can be seized, and that it allows
seizure for "any offence under a provincial or federal law."

The law does not do enough to protect people who may have interest in
a property but no participation in illegal activity, she said, using
the example of a landlord who fails to inspect a home but has no
involvement in a marijuana grow-op there.

The civil liberties association also objects to the fact the B.C. law
has no provision to waive a preservation order if the person requires
his assets to pay legal fees or living expenses.

"This is the state going up against an individual ... It's a stacked deck."