The cost of getting it wrong: answered

A judge issued a ruling today ordering the Crown to repay $86,201.62  in legal costs to a senior citizen whose Calgary condo was wrongly targeted by authorities using Alberta’s civil forfeiture legislation.

Lawyers for Patricia Thomson, 74, were in court last month arguing that the Crown should have to pick up the tab for the money she spent fighting in court to hold on to her property. Alberta Justice obtained a restraining order against Thomson’s $300,000 condo last year, alleging it was used by her son and other suspects implicated in a fraud scheme.

In a ruling last February, Queen’s Bench Justice Alan Macleod quashed the restraining order following a charter challenge from Thomson’s lawyers, saying it amounted to a “fishing expedition” for evidence against the fraud suspects that violated Thomson’s rights.

The Victims Compensation and Restitution Payment Act is intended to target organized crime by giving the Crown the authority to permanently seize property used in the commission of crime, or bought with money earned through criminal activity. That usually means things like houses used as marijuana grow operations, flashy cars bought by drug dealers or legitimate businesses bought by gangsters to launder money.

In Thomson’s case, authorities alleged the condo was used in a fraud scheme involving her son because her address was listed on banking and corporate registry documents. It turns out that was the only way Thomson’s property was involved: as an address listed on a form, without her knowledge — hence Macleod’s “fishing expedition” comment.

Speaking today with one of Thomson’s lawyers, Michael Bates, he said he hopes the Crown will think twice before attempting such a broad interpretation of what the act defines as an “instrument of crime” or “proceeds of crime.”

“I hope it’s going to cause the minister to be far more careful to push the limits of this legislation,” he said.



Filed under Court cases

2 responses to “The cost of getting it wrong: answered

  1. Lawrence A. Oshanek

    Mr. Bates and I talked of this law and other things like the restriction on owning body amour by private individuals. I may obtain such armour and get arrested just to test that particular law which I believe to be unconstitutional … there are great dangers in allowing police chiefs and other police officers to make or lobby to make our laws …. left unchallenged, we would have a complete police state within a very short period of time.

    We now allow the civil servant to professionally lobby government to change laws … this should be made into an offense in any democracy which wants to remain a democracy.

  2. Pingback: U.S.-based civil forfeiture abuses could happen here too | Frontier Centre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s