JUSTICE UNIT HOLDS POWER TO EVICT

SYDNEY - Guilty or not, people suspected of certain crimes are being
turfed from their homes across the province.

So far, occupants of 23 homes, apartments or trailers have been
evicted since the summer, when a new division of the Justice
Department began to fully enforce the new provincial Safer
Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. Proclaimed Jan. 7, the act is
intended to target suspected drug use and sales, prostitution,
illegal gaming, bootlegging or child sexual abuse.

The Justice Department hired and armed five former police officers to
staff the public safety investigative unit, which has looked into 130
complaints from the public. More than half of those reports came from
rural Nova Scotians sick of suspected criminals and the perceived
lack of action by cash-strapped police forces. About 20 of the
complainants were Cape Bretoners.

"We're surprised that less than 50 per cent of all the complaints we
received originate from the Halifax or Sydney area," said Fred
Sanford, director of the new section. "The act is designed to give
relief to communities where many people feel held hostage by criminal
activity."

But some say the law could pose a danger to people's rights.

One of Canada's leading constitutional lawyers, Peter Hogg of
Toronto, said the act, similar to legislation in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador, leaves plenty of
room for abuse of power by the state.

"I'm surprised this hasn't been challenged," he said by phone
Thursday. "This sort of thing hasn't come to Ontario yet."

How it works is this: The unit's five investigators bolster the
efforts of municipal and federal police by gathering enough evidence
to satisfy a Supreme Court judge there is sufficient reason to lock
up buildings and kick out all tenants with what's called a community
safety order. "It's very exciting to see legislation that really
works," Mr. Sanford told The Chronicle Herald in a recent interview.
"We can do things that police officers can't do."

For starters, they don't need a search warrant, something needed to
gather evidence intended to be used to convict a person of crime like
drug trafficking.

The squad also doesn't use traditional investigative techniques like
costly wiretaps. They use mostly covert observations captured on
video to detect possible criminal activity.

Also "the director has the authority to enter a property without the
consent of the owner or occupant to close it under an order and keep
it closed," Mr. Sanford said.

So far, every time the investigators have entered a neighbourhood,
local police have been called to back them up while they lock out the
occupants.

Mr. Sanford said Justice Department lawyers for the department have
obtained community safety orders because "the burden of proof in
court is a balance of probabilities" of guilt.

Once an order is granted, the division's investigators post an
eviction notice on the door and shut down the property for 90 days.

In October, occupants of one home on Cornwallis Street in Sydney not
only were served an eviction notice, but also a warrant from Cape
Breton Regional Police. According to police, on Oct. 5, the street
crime unit arrested a man at 137 Cornwallis St. for trafficking drugs
like LSD, marijuana and hash oil.

They also charged him with improper storage of firearms and
possession of an illegal handgun. Officer also seized cash alleged to
be the proceeds of crime.

"Many transients move out on their own . . . and in fairness to
landowners, many are not aware of illegal activity going on," Mr. Sanford said.

He said after they gather video evidence, they confront the occupant
or the building owner about the alleged illegal activity.

"It's quite effective . . . If we're convinced you're dealing drugs,
we'll come to visit . . . plug in a laptop computer and show (you)
the evidence. It gets their attention."

Next, they discuss their findings with local police agencies, which
decide on the next step, such as whether to get a warrant to conduct
searches for evidence of criminal activity.

Tom Urbaniak, a political scientist from Cape Breton University, said
there's a valid policy objective in the process because it's
extremely difficult to shut down, say, a known crack house. But he
called the legislation, which passed in 2006 with all-party support
after little debate, an example of "laziness."

"All too often, elected officials are neglecting one of their core
functions, which is to scrutinize legislation," he said after
reviewing the 16-page law, which gives sweeping powers to
bureaucrats. "They are not actually reading the bills that come
before them. They are not doing their legislative homework."

He said there seems to be too much power afforded to the provincial
bureaucrat who heads the new enforcement unit.

"The act contains vague and ambiguous statements, allowing, for
example, the director to 'take any other action that the director
considers appropriate,'" Mr. Urbaniak said.

"Furthermore, the act actually says that the director does not have
to give reasons for his or her decisions.

"The act, as written, is easily prone to abuses. Innocent tenants or
family members could find themselves suddenly on the street," Mr.
Urbaniak said.

"Tenants are not given the automatic right to respond to such an
order before the order takes effect, and the onus would then be on
them to prove that they should not be locked out."

A frivolous or vexatious argument involving a neighbour could also
lead to a wrongful eviction or put innocent women and children on the
street, a concern raised by the Newfoundland Advisory Council on the
Status of Women.

So far, the people evicted from their homes in this province have
been kicked out for suspected drug activity, but one case involved a
suspected prostitute.

Sgt. John O'Rourke, head of the Cape Breton Regional Police street
crime unit, said the new unit will help bust crime.

"We're all working toward the same goal, getting crime off the
streets. . . . So we don't care who does it as long as it gets done."

The act also gives the province the right to shut fortified buildings
and order them removed within 21 days or shut them down for 90 days
and bill the owner for the expense.

A fortified building, according to the act, is any building protected
by bulletproof or explosive-resistant material, protective metal
plating, armoured doors or metal bars on doors or windows.

Anyone interfering in a closed home can face a year in jail or a fine
of up to $20,000.

People with a concern about illegal activity in their neighbourhoods
can report it to the enforcement unit at 1-877-357-2337.

[SIDEBAR]

COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDERS

.Target properties in which there is suspected bootlegging, drug use
or trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse and gambling;

.Give courts the power, after hearing from provincial lawyers, to
close properties adversely affecting neighbourhoods or posing a threat;

.Allow provincial authorities to enter private and publicly owned
dwellings without a warrant or owner's consent to shut down them down
for up to 90 days at the cost to the owners or tenants;

.Terminate any landlord-tenant agreement or lease arrangement;

.Give the authorities the power to hire workers to tell occupants to
leave immediately and to attach locks, erect fences, cut off power or
water supplies, or make interior or exterior changes so closed
properties don't pose a hazard;

.Require that information be shared with other agencies such as
police, courts or the Children's Aid Society;

.Provide access to information for occupants on where to find
alternative accommodations or emergency shelter; and

.Allow for penalties against anyone entering a closed property,
including fines up to $20,000 or a year in jail.

Source: Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act