HOUSE GONE TO POT: WOMAN TAKES FORFEITURE RULING TO TOP COURT

Worth $460,000 In '05. Grower Pleads Guilty After Cops Seize 186 Plants

Judy Ann Craig, a former realtor with a golden touch for gardening,
will try to convince the Supreme Court of Canada tomorrow that being
forced to forfeit her North Vancouver home for running a marijuana
grow-op is extreme punishment for her crime.

Craig is one of three Canadians - two from B.C. and one from Quebec -
challenging the seizure of homes in which they grew pot, a penalty
that is increasingly levied following changes six years ago to
federal drug laws.

The 58-year-old horticulturalist contends that running a small-scale
operation, mainly in her basement, should not warrant the same harsh
penalties imposed for large, sophisticated businesses controlled by
organized crime.

"Forfeiture of a residence of someone at retirement age with no
record is severe and destroys hope of rehabilitation," Craig's
lawyer, Howard Rubin, argues in a Supreme Court brief that describes
her as "a minor cog in a broader sociological problem."

Craig, who says she started growing marijuana at the urging of an
HIV-infected friend a decade ago, pleaded guilty in 2003 after police
seized 186 marijuana plants.

She received a conditional sentence and a $115,000 fine, but since
she had no other assets and owed $250,000 in unpaid taxes from her
ill-gotten earnings, the court ordered the forfeiture of her
two-storey home. It was valued at $460,000 at the time of her 2005 sentencing.

Craig's lawyer will argue that federal forfeiture laws for drug
crimes should not apply to Craig, whom he described in court as an
"independent" entrepreneur.

The B.C. Court of Appeal, in ruling against Craig, said she was the
operator of "a successful commercial operation that grossed over
$100,000 a year."

Craig testified in court that she started growing marijuana in 1998
because she was depressed from her divorce several years earlier and
"I needed a challenge to kick-start me out of this state." She said
that she used her earnings to beautify her clematis-enveloped garden
that was featured in a 2002 edition of Gardens West magazine.

The Crown rejects Craig's assertion that forfeiture of her house is too harsh.

"Although the substance was marijuana and not a more dangerous
substance like cocaine or heroin, the (courts) in British Columbia
have accepted that grow operations in residential neighbourhoods
present significant dangers to the community," says a court brief
from federal lawyers Francois Lacasse and Paul Riley.

Craig ran a commercial operation in which she employed "hired hands"
and sold marijuana in ounce, half-pound and one-pound quantities,
generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal revenue over
five years, says the brief.

She also substantially altered her property for her illicit business,
modifying the electrical system and installing a hidden entrance.

The Crown says that Parliament amended the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act in 2002 to mandate seizure of "offence-related
property" to reflect society's "abhorrence" for the social problems
associated with the drug trade.

The Supreme Court is expected to clarify the law for the courts,
which have handed down conflicting rulings, in part because of a
caveat that gives judges leeway if they think forfeiture is
disproportionate to the crime.

The bench will also weigh tomorrow in the appeal of Kien Tam Nguyen,
who was ordered to forfeit his Surrey, B.C. home after he was found
guilty of running a marijuana grow-op.

In another case on the same day, the court will decide whether the
Quebec Court of Appeal was right to order the partial forfeiture of
Yves Ouellette's home after he was convicted of growing pot.