ONTARIO ALSO WANTS GROW-OP HOUSE

TORONTO - The Ontario government is trying to seize the residence of
a 60-year-old Toronto man who ran a marijuana grow-op in his own
home, if the federal Crown is unsuccessful in its own attempts to
take the property.

The province has filed an application under its Civil Remedies Act,
seeking forfeiture of the modest semi-detached home owned by Tam Ngoc
Tran and his former wife in the Jane-Finch section of Toronto.

Tran was convicted of marijuana production offences earlier this year
by a provincial court judge.

The labourer admitted that he tried to start a grow-op in the family
home, which has been assessed at $275,000, because he had difficulty
finding work after suffering a stroke.

Justice Kathleen Caldwell heard that Tran tried to grow marijuana
over a period of several months. He was not skilled at it and ended
up losing about $1,000 before he was arrested in early 2007.

His former wife was acquitted of all charges by Judge Caldwell. The
couple have no previous criminal record. There are no allegations of
links to organized crime and Tran paid his own hydro bills while
running the grow-op.

Federal prosecutors are seeking up to 18 months in jail for Tran and
forfeiture of the home under the Criminal Code.

The Civil Remedies Act permits the Ontario government to seize
property if it is shown to be an "instrument of unlawful activity"
based on a balance of probabilities.

The couple has about $130,000 of equity in the house, which was
purchased in 1997.

It is unusual for the province to initiate forfeiture proceedings
when the federal Crown is already seeking the same property, said
Tran's lawyer Peter Zaduk.

The defence lawyer suggested it was unfair to try to take a family
home purchased more than a decade ago, because of a grow-op that was
in place for a period of months.

"If you have a small grow-op where you live, you lose your home. This
can't be right," said Mr. Zaduk. "It is ironic they left Vietnam to
escape communist domination of their lives. Now they are confronted
by an omnipresent and unforgiving state," he noted.

The lawyer acting for the province referred all questions to the
Ministry of the Attorney-General. The Ministry does not comment on
specific cases, spokesman Brendan Crawley said. In general, though,
"civil forfeiture proceedings may be commenced with the goal of
preserving a property to ensure it remains available for civil
forfeiture in the event that criminal forfeiture is not ordered," he said.

The federal forfeiture hearing against Tran resumes in January, two
weeks before the provincial forfeiture motion is scheduled to begin.