RCMP INSPECTOR EXPLAINS RESTRAINT ORDERS

This week my office put out a brief news release indicating that we
had successfully "restrained" two properties under the Controlled
Drug and Substances Act (CDSA). I feel that release deserves further comment.

The "restraint" is actually a BC Supreme Court order which
effectively gives full control and interest in the property over to
the Crown on an interim basis until a hearing can be held to
determine whether the property, wholly or partially, will be
forfeited to the Crown. That forfeiture is dependent on a conviction
against the accused and a finding by the court that, on a base of
probability, the property was used in the commission of the offence.
While the legislation around this issue is somewhat complex, the
bottom line is that, in the case of those who choose to grow
cannabis, they run the risk of losing their house and property.

The Property Restraint and Management Order under Section 14 of the
CDSA is served on both the property and owner as well as any mortgage
holder. It is also registered on title at the provincial Land Titles
Office. It effectively gives control of the property over to the
federal Seized Property Management Directorate (SPMD) who, after the
mortgage holder, become the next interest-holder in the property. The
owner is prohibited from disposing of, or in any way dealing with the
interest in the property; it can't be sold, conveyed or transferred
in any way. At the same time, they, as the homeowner, must still pay
all the taxes and utilities, maintain the property and properly
insure it. Indeed SPMD even become the beneficiary of the insurance
policy over the homeowner. They have the right to enter onto and
manage the property at their discretion to ensure the interests of
the state are looked after.

Tough measures from pretty tough legislation. But these are also
pretty tough times that unfortunately require solid action - and this
is just at the federal level. In 2005, the provincial government
enacted the Civil Forfeiture Act. This legislation is even more
stringent because it, being civil in nature, does not even require a
conviction in criminal court in order for the property to be seized
and forfeited. We have, and will continue to use, this legislation to
full advantage as well.

My hope, always, is that people will do the right thing. But where
personal ethics and integrity don't exist, or where public
pressure/condemnation nor fear of criminal conviction will dissuade
people, then perhaps the loss of their house and property will.