The Appellant, Hong Thu Thi Vo, appealed a Chambers judge’s decision allowing amendments to the Director of Civil Forfeiture’s Notice of Civil Claim against her property.
The Appellant argued that the Director should be required to particularize the alleged “unlawful activity” involving her property, and to add Thanh Le as a Defendant, in view of the Director’s allegation that Mr. Le possessed a trust interest in the property in question.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the Chambers judge’s decision that because the Director was not required to prove a specific offence in order to achieve forfeiture, the particulars sought by the Defendant were not required:
“[26] In my opinion, the chambers judge reached the correct conclusion. In Chatterjee, at para. 21, Binnie J. held that the Attorney General as applicant in that case was not required to prove any particular offence against any particular offender. As the respondent is similarly not required to prove any particular offence against any particular offender, it follows that he is not required to plead specific transactions or provide particulars thereof.”
In regard to Mr. Le, however, the Court of Appeal found that the Director could not have it both ways, and must either drop his claim against Mr. Le’s interest in the property or alternatively add him as a co-Defendant:
“[17] As the pleadings presently stand, the respondent seeks to affect what he has described as Mr. Le’s resulting trust interest in the 41st Property. If such an interest continues to be alleged, Mr. Le must be named as a defendant in the proceedings pursuant to s. 4 of the Act. If such an interest is no longer alleged, the respondent must amend his notice of civil claim to delete that allegation. He then faces the prospect that any interest that Mr. Le may have in the 41st Property will not be defeated by the proceedings where he is not named as a defendant.”
In view of Ms. Vo’s substantial success on the issue regarding Mr. Le, the Court of Appeal awarded costs of the entire appeal in favour of the Defendant.
Decided by the BC Court of Appeal on June 7, 2013.
Click here for the full text of the decision.