The BCCLA says that new amendments passed recently by the Province of B.C. to limit, and in some cases entirely remove, judicial oversight of property seizures likely won't survive a court challenge.
The recently passed Civil Forefeiture Amendment Act allows the provincial Director of that Act to seize property if he or she has "reason to believe" the property is proceeds or an instrument of crime. No judge oversees the process unless, within 60 days, the property owner files an objection.
The amendments are for property other than real estate valued at up to $75,000. The amendments were supported by both political parties in the legislature.
"The Supreme Court of Canada said that judicial oversight and proof on a balance of probabilities that the property was involved somehow with crime satisfied the province's constitutional obligations," said Robert Holmes, President of the BCCLA.
"We suspect that the courts will not be as agreeable to the removal of judicial oversight entirely for many property seizures."
For people who take longer than 60 days to file an objection, their sole remedy is to sue the provincial government in expensive and lengthy civil litigation processes.
"We've seen what happens when governments try to avoid the courts in cities like Mission," said Holmes. "Innocent people there faced tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and under this new law, could easily have had cars and other belongings seized without a judge being involved at all."
The provincial government justifies the change by saying that only two thirds of property seizures are contested by the property owners in court, and that going to court to justify seizing property is too resource intensive.
