APPEAL COURT REJECTS EX-WIFE'S HOUSE CLAIM

A Surrey woman has been told she can't fight to get her own house
back because she wasn't the one who lost it.

Hanh Thi Vu learned from B.C.'s Court of Appeal last week that only
convicted criminals have the right to launch an appeal once the
government seizes property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Vu had sought relief from the appeal court after the government
seized her Surrey house because her former husband, Trong Hieu Vu,
had been growing pot there.

But according to Section 16(3) of the Act, only the attorney-general
or "a person who has been convicted of a designated substance
offence" may appeal a property forfeiture order.

Justice Ian Donald noted that this doesn't include Vu.

"This provision gives no right of appeal to Ms. Vu, who is not a
person convicted of an offence within the meaning of the Act."

He quashed her appeal, with fellow appeal court judges Mary Newbury
and Edward Chiasson concurring.

Surrey provincial court Judge Jean Lytwyn had convicted Ms. Vu's
estranged husband of marijuana production, possession for the purpose
of trafficking and theft of electricity in January 2009.

The couple had separated a couple months before his arrest in
November 2006. He'd been the only one living in the house, despite
his wife being the sole person on title. They divorced in 2008.