Pubdate: Wed, 09 Mar 2016
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2016 The Toronto Star
Contact:  http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456
Author: Jacques Gallant
Page: A1

PROPERTY SEIZURES ARE OFTEN CASH GRABS, REPORT SAYS

Maggie Reilly has been fighting the province in court for the last
seven years, after the government seized two of her rental properties
in Orillia, following accusations that she was receiving drug money as
rent from some of her tenants.

"We were shocked. I've been a good citizen all my life. I've never
broken the law," she told the Star.

"We had reserved those two buildings particularly to house people who
are basically living on the fringes of society, people who other
landlords are not comfortable renting to, but everyone's entitled to a
roof over their heads."

Reilly, 55, is among a number of individuals across the country who
have had property seized even though they've never been charged or
convicted of a crime.

A new report indicates the seizures - part of a system known as civil
forfeiture - are often cash grabs for provincial governments, which
have collected millions of dollars in assets as proceeds of crime.
Civil forfeiture legislation exists in eight provinces.

"Civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property
not only from criminals, but also from people who have never been
charged with, or even suspected of, a crime," says the report by the
Canadian Constitution Foundation and Institute for Liberal Studies.

Ontario's civil forfeiture system was given an F by the report. The
province has distributed $21.2 million to victims to since 2003,
according to the report, yet in 2013-14 alone, the province seized
$22.9 million.

Significant forfeitures in Ontario include $19.8 million from a
worldwide Ponzi scheme for distribution (via the U.S. Department of
Justice) to 28,000 victims worldwide, and biker clubhouses in Oshawa
and Thunder Bay, according to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The report released this week also mentions an Ontario couple who lost
their $400,000, 12-unit apartment because some renters were involved
in illegal activities.

Forfeitures in other provinces, according to the report, include a man
in Saskatchewan having his $7,500 truck taken away after selling $60
worth of OxyContin he legally owned to buy gas so he could drive to
work.

Another issue with civil forfeiture is that money from the proceedings
goes to provincial governments and police services with little
transparency, the report says.

"It is difficult to know how much money collected by successful civil
forfeiture applications goes towards compensating victims," the report
states. "Instead, it seems that much is used to purchase equipment for
the police or is spent on trivial and improper expenses."

Reilly claims most of her tenants were covered by social
assistance.

"That's the absurdity of it," she said. "They've taken our buildings
away because we were supposedly collecting rent that's drug money when
really it's the Ontario government that's paying the rent."

Reilly's lawyer said a judge signed off on the province's desire to
sell the two properties in 2014, but the sale has yet to happen.

According to a 2014 ruling in the case, the government accused Reilly
and her husband of not acting as responsible owners, saying unlawful
activity was taking place on the property, including drug use. The
Reillys, according to the ruling, acknowledged the issues, but pointed
to the problems inherent with renting to low-income residents.

A spokeswoman for Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said the
government does not comment on matters that are still before the courts.

"Civil forfeiture is intended to help suppress and discourage unlawful
activity by undermining the ability to profit from or use profits to
finance new unlawful activity," said spokeswoman Christine Burke.

"The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have both
upheld the constitutionality of the proceeds provisions of the Civil
Remedies Act on both federalism and charter grounds."

Reilly's lawyer, Shawna Fattal, said what is "most disturbing" is the
standard of proof used in a civil forfeiture proceeding.

"It's the same as in civil actions, which is balance of probabilities,
a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard
applied in criminal law," she told the Star.

The report states this standard of proof makes it easier to seize
property.

The two organizations that crafted the report listed a number of
recommendations, including:

Forfeiture should be available only when a property owner has been
convicted of a provincial offence.

Judges should have discretion to craft proportionate forfeiture
orders.

Civil forfeiture should be available only for property used or
acquired by an owner convicted of a corresponding provincial offence
where an identifiable victim was harmed.

Revenue collected by successful civil forfeitures should compensate
victims that suffered harm as a result of a convicted property owner's
acts.

Each provincial civil forfeiture office should provide a full and
accurate annual report on revenues raised and compensation disbursed.

Reilly, whose legal battle with the province continues, said the
seizure of her properties has been devastating.

"I'm going to fight till the bitter end until it bankrupts me," she
said. "Because it's just not right."

- - With files from The Canadian Press
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt