Pubdate: Thu, 13 Aug 2009
Source: Mission City Record (CN BC)
Copyright: 2009 The Mission City Record
Contact:  http://www.missioncityrecord.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1305
Author: Insp. Pat Walsh
Note: Insp. Pat Walsh is the Officer In Charge of the RCMP detachment in
Mission.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

RCMP INSPECTOR EXPLAINS RESTRAINT ORDERS

This week my office put out a brief news release indicating that we 
had successfully "restrained" two properties under the Controlled 
Drug and Substances Act (CDSA). I feel that release deserves further comment.

The "restraint" is actually a BC Supreme Court order which 
effectively gives full control and interest in the property over to 
the Crown on an interim basis until a hearing can be held to 
determine whether the property, wholly or partially, will be 
forfeited to the Crown. That forfeiture is dependent on a conviction 
against the accused and a finding by the court that, on a base of 
probability, the property was used in the commission of the offence. 
While the legislation around this issue is somewhat complex, the 
bottom line is that, in the case of those who choose to grow 
cannabis, they run the risk of losing their house and property.

The Property Restraint and Management Order under Section 14 of the 
CDSA is served on both the property and owner as well as any mortgage 
holder. It is also registered on title at the provincial Land Titles 
Office. It effectively gives control of the property over to the 
federal Seized Property Management Directorate (SPMD) who, after the 
mortgage holder, become the next interest-holder in the property. The 
owner is prohibited from disposing of, or in any way dealing with the 
interest in the property; it can't be sold, conveyed or transferred 
in any way. At the same time, they, as the homeowner, must still pay 
all the taxes and utilities, maintain the property and properly 
insure it. Indeed SPMD even become the beneficiary of the insurance 
policy over the homeowner. They have the right to enter onto and 
manage the property at their discretion to ensure the interests of 
the state are looked after.

Tough measures from pretty tough legislation. But these are also 
pretty tough times that unfortunately require solid action - and this 
is just at the federal level. In 2005, the provincial government 
enacted the Civil Forfeiture Act. This legislation is even more 
stringent because it, being civil in nature, does not even require a 
conviction in criminal court in order for the property to be seized 
and forfeited. We have, and will continue to use, this legislation to 
full advantage as well.

My hope, always, is that people will do the right thing. But where 
personal ethics and integrity don't exist, or where public 
pressure/condemnation nor fear of criminal conviction will dissuade 
people, then perhaps the loss of their house and property will.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom