PROVINCES CAN KEEP CRIME CASH, SUPREME COURT RULES

The Supreme Court of Canada handed provinces the key to the mint
yesterday, declaring that an Ontario law aimed at forfeiting the
proceeds of crime is constitutional.

The ruling opens the door to the provinces grabbing millions, if not
tens of millions, of dollars per year. Eight provinces have already
fashioned forfeiture provisions into a cottage industry, seizing
homes, automobiles, bank accounts and numerous other forms of assets.

Yesterday's 7-0 ruling also had the effect of sparing the provinces
from having to potentially return millions of dollars in previously
seized property.

"Crime imposes substantial costs on provincial treasuries," Mr.
Justice Ian Binnie said in the ruling. "Those costs impact many
provincial interests, including health, policing resources, community
stability and family welfare.

"It would be out of step with modern realities to conclude that a
province must shoulder the costs to the community of criminal
behaviour but cannot use deterrence to suppress it."

The case pitted an Ontario university student - Robin Chatterjee -
against eight provinces that either have forfeiture laws or have been
holding off on enacting them in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Judge Binnie said there is a natural meeting point between federal
responsibility for criminal law and provincial jurisdiction over
property and civil rights. He said both levels of government have a
legitimate interest in forfeiting proceeds of crime.

Toronto police officers pulled over Mr. Chatterjee's car on March 27,
2003. They detected the reek of fresh marijuana, but couldn't find a
trace of it.

Aside from $29,020 in cash, an exhaust fan and a light ballast, there
was a dearth of even circumstantial evidence to link him to a
grow-op. The Carleton University student was freed without charges.

However, prosecutors moved in swiftly and seized the cash and the
contents of his car. Because Mr. Chatterjee could not explain the
source of the money, and the equipment was the type frequently used
in grow-ops, the law allowed them to be deemed connected to crime.

"It appears that the line between provincial and federal jurisdiction
dealing with criminal matters has been blurred," James Diamond, a
lawyer for Mr. Chatterjee, said yesterday.

"While we are disappointed with the result, in defeat, we nonetheless
acknowledge the strength of our democracy where a man of modest means
such as Mr. Chatterjee can still obtain a fair hearing before the
highest court in the land and hold provinces accountable on their
legislative initiatives," he said.

Since 2002, Ontario has seized or launched forfeiture proceedings
involving almost $16-million in property, 73 per cent of it from
drug-related cases.

B.C. has seized $4.5-million under its own provision since 2006.
Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Quebec have created forfeiture
laws, but have delayed using them until the Supreme Court ruled. The
holdouts, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, are almost sure to
pass their own laws shortly.

The provincial laws are distinct from federal criminal-forfeiture
laws, which are part of the criminal sentencing process, and widely
conceded to be constitutional.