Supreme Court Is Uncertain Concerning Provincial Right to Seize Property

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada resolved Friday that Provincial governments have the constitutional right to apprehend cash, homes and other property suspected to be takings of crime. The consentaneous resolution confine indigenous laws that allow police to sequestrate goods they suspect are cock-eyed, even not taking into consideration that they do not have sufficient confirmations to pose charges. Moreover the fact, presented by an Ontario man that provincial seizure laws, adopted in recent years to deter crime and compensate victims, tread on federal jurisdiction over criminal law was rejected by the court.

"Crime imposes substantial costs on provincial treasuries," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.

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

Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University in Ottawa, was on route to his parents' Toronto home in March 2003 when police pulled him over and seized his money and goods. Chatterjee's car was missing a front licence plate and that was the reason of police investigation. Police managed to found light ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan - items that law enforcement officers contend could be used for marijuana grow operations. They also confiscated $29,000 cash. Only due to the fact that the police have no enough evidence, they were not able to arrest young gay. According to Ontario's Civil Remedies Act, a 2001 confiscation law aimed at organized crime does not require a criminal conviction. But on the other hand, taking into consideration that criminal law is a federal matter; the problem is that whether or not provinces have the power to apprehend goods they suspect were cock-eyed.

Anyway, the vast majority of provinces possess similar forfeiture laws and at the same time eight provinces participated in the Supreme Court case to substantiate they have the constitutional power to apprehend the proceeds of crime.

With reference to Ontario, which managed the charge, corroborated that its Civil Remedies Act is hardly possibly to treat to criminal law, but rather a civil process presupposed to recompense victims of crime and assist with crime suppression by pointing it less attractive to pursue.

According to court data, the province had apprehended $15 million in assets in August 2007.

From Chatterjee's lawyers point of view that crime is a federal accountability and, therefore, the Ontario government's legislation determining the confiscation of everything from houses to cash is outside provincial jurisdiction. According to arguments filed in the Supreme Court Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have confiscation laws.

It is interesting that two lower courts align themselves with the Ontario government in the question, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May 2007 that the criminal law is not a "watertight compartment" that precludes provincial involvement. One more issue in the problem is whether property condemnation allocates punishment. But the Ontario government point it does not, motivating that it is sequestrating something that never legally appertained to the person in the first place.