ONTARIO DROPS CHARGES, BUT KEEPS WOMAN'S SEIZED $435

TORONTO - The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General is refusing to
return $435 seized from a 49-year-old woman during a marijuana
grow-op raid, even though the charges against her were eventually dropped.

The province says it can keep the money under its Remedies for
Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act. The law, enacted
in December, 2001, by the former Conservative government, has been
criticized by some legal experts as possibly unconstitutional.

Phuong Thi Nguyen, who has no criminal record and is a Canadian
citizen, was charged in June 2004 with a marijuana production offence
after police seized nearly 300 plants at a home north of Toronto.

None of the tenants was present and Ms. Nguyen, who had keys to the
residence, was the only person charged by police. Her lawyer, Peter
Zaduk, said federal prosecutors withdrew the charge this spring after
they accepted his client's explanation that she was at the home to
collect rent on behalf of the landlady.

The provincial attorney general's Civil Remedies for Illicit
Activities branch maintains it has grounds for a forfeiture order for
the money.

"The fact that your client was not convicted as charged is not
conclusive with respect to the application for forfeiture," said
government lawyer Anne Kendall, in a letter to Mr. Zaduk. There is a
much lower standard of proof under the provincial law, and Ms.
Kendall noted it was suspicious that Ms. Nguyen was in possession of
$435 even though she told police she was unemployed.

Ms. Kendall, who did not return calls seeking comment, offered to
draft the required legal documents if Ms. Nguyen agreed to forfeit
the money, "to save your client from incurring further legal expenses."

Mr. Zaduk said it is not "economically viable" for his client to go
to court to try to recover her money, but he stressed there was no
evidence it was connected to illegal activity.

The Toronto lawyer said there is a "real question" whether the
provincial legislation would withstand a constitutional challenge.