SUPREME COURT OKS CONFISCATION BY PROVINCES OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Unanimous Ruling Preserves Existing Forfeiture Laws

Provincial governments were spared the prospect of returning millions
of dollars in seized property when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
Friday that the Crown has the power to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

The unanimous decision preserves provincial laws adopted across
Canada in recent years permitting governments to attempt to take the
profit out of crime and to compensate victims by ordering the
forfeiture of ill-gotten goods.

The ruling rejected an Ontario man's argument that the province's
Civil Remedies Act is unconstitutional because it treads on federal
jurisdiction over criminal law.

"Each level of government bears a portion of the costs of criminality
and each level of government, therefore, has an interest in its
suppression," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.

Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University in Ottawa,
was en route to his home in Thornhill, Ont., in March 2003 when
police pulled him over because his car was missing a front licence plate.

They discovered he was breaching a court order to live in Ottawa and
upon searching his car, found a light ballast, one light socket and
an exhaust fan -- items commonly used for marijuana grow operations.
He also had $29,000 cash.

Police did not charge the young man because they said they did not
have enough evidence.

Ontario's Civil Remedies Act, however, does not require a criminal
conviction, so the province moved in and seized the goods after
receiving judicial approval. A judge can give permission based on a
balance of probabilities that the goods were proceeds of crime, a
standard that is not as high as the criminal test of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec
and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to documents
filed in the Supreme Court.

Chatterjee's lawyer, James Diamond, predicted a spike in forfeitures
following the Supreme Court's endorsement. Also, provinces that have
put their efforts on hold pending the ruling can now proceed, he said.

"I certainly expect that all the provinces will step up their
efforts," said Diamond.

Seven provinces joined the court challenge to side with Ontario in
its successful argument that seizing proceeds of crime falls under
provincial power over property and civil rights, rather than federal
jurisdiction to craft criminal law.

"Forfeiture is the transfer of property from the owner to the Crown,"
wrote Binnie. "Forfeiture does not result in the conviction of
anybody for any offence."

As of August 2007, Ontario had seized $15 million in property,
according to court records.

Friday's Supreme Court decision upholds two previous rulings in the
lower courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in
May 2007 that the criminal law is not a "watertight compartment" that
precludes provincial involvement. The government can also freeze
assets, as it did in January in a case involving an Ottawa crack house.

B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Office reported last August that it had
seized $5.6 million in assets, mainly from illicit drug cases, since
its law took effect in 2006.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in
the appeal on Chatterjee's behalf, had warned the Supreme Court to be
cautious of legislation "that permits the provinces to exercise
coercive state powers under the guise of co-operative federalism."