Civil Forfeiture in Canada

The Director of Civil Forfeiture’s applied to force the sale of the defendants’ property, which was subject to an interim preservation order and in the process of foreclosure. Continue reading →

The Defendant, Ali Kazan, admitted that an 80-plant marijuana grow op had been located on the upper floor of his home, but argued that it was disproportionate and clearly not in the interests of justice to order forfeiture of his home on this basis. He also claimed that he had no knowledge of a sophisticated marijuana processing operation located in the two-bedroom basement suite of the same house, where police had seized some 41 kilograms of marijuana after obtaining a search warrant. Continue reading →

The Defendant, Mr. Flynn, had argued in a pre-trial motion that forfeiture of real property as an “instrument of crime” was contrary to common law principles of statutory interpretation. The Chambers judge was not satisfied that the Director’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and found that the proper place to consider the statutory interpretation argument was in the context of a trial: Continue reading →

The Crowley case involved an application for forfeiture of a home in which police had found a prohibited firearm, a controlled substance, and approximately $93,000 in cash. Most of the money had already been forfeit to the Canada Revenue Agency and federal government. The Director apparently saw this forfeiture as an insufficient penalty for simple possession of a firearm and a narcotic, and argued that the property where the items had been found should also be forfeit. Continue reading →

Trinh Tu Huynh, defendant in a civil forfeiture action against a home in Surrey, had subpoenaed Leslie LeClair, a Crown prosecutor who had stayed criminal charges against her in connection with the same marijuana grow operation alleged in the civil forfeiture action. The Director of Civil Forfeiture applied to set aside the subpoena of Mr. LeClair, arguing that the court could not make inquiries into the discretion of Crown Counsel. Continue reading →

In its review of the decision of Mr. Justice Metzger of the BC Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal considered the nature and the extent of the “interests of justice” defence codified in Section 6(1) of British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Act. Continue reading →

British Columbia’s Director of Civil Forfeiture applied to amend its Notice of Civil Claim so as to add a new Defendant, add a new subject property, and allege new details in regard to the Defendant’s financial dealings. The Defendant, Hong Thu Thi Vo, opposed these amendments, and put forward an argument that the Director’s allegations disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Continue reading →

The Hurtubise case made for a complex balancing act involving the interests of various part-owners of two properties in Mission, BC on which marijuana grow operations had been located. The court had to consider whether and to what extent forfeiture of the properties would be contrary to the interests of justice. Continue reading →