In Director of Civil Forfeiture v. Angel Acres, the Director of Civil Forfeiture had obtained an interim preservation order pending trial, allowing it to seize the “Angel Acres” clubhouse in Nanaimo, British Columbia, on the basis of information obtained by the police in the “Project Halo” investigation.
Police officers swore affidavits, stating that the clubhouse was heavily fortified and outfitted with surveillance cameras, and that these modifications could provide a safe place for the planning of violent criminal activity. In addition, the investigation found that liquor was being distributed through the facility without a license.
The Project Halo investigation did not turn up enough hard evidence to support criminal charges against any owners or members of Angel Acres, but was enough to convince BC Supreme Court Justice Davies that there was a “serious issue to be tried” in a civil forfeiture proceeding. Justice Davies therefore issued an interim preservation order giving the Director full control over the clubhouse and surrounding lands, and essentially locking the Defendants out of their own facility.
The Defendants appealed this decision on the grounds that no criminal activity had been discovered and the Director’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that there was a serious possibility that the Director could demonstrate illegal activity on a civil standard of proof (i.e. the balance of probabilities), which is all that is necessary to achieve forfeiture.
Over all, this is a very disturbing precedent, which applies the civil standard of proof to forfeiture proceedings in British Columbia. The Court of Appeal ruled that in order to obtain forfeiture of this valuable property, the Director need only prove that it is likely that illegal activity took place on the premises, and that the presumption of innocence found in criminal proceedings simply does not apply. This decision is symbolic of a general lack of respect for private property rights in Canadian constitutional law.
Decided by the BC Court of Appeal on December 30, 2010.
Click here for the full text of the decision.