Seizing B.C.'s Grow-op Homes
Buying a former grow-op can lead to big savings for prospective homeowners as well as big profits for the B.C. government, which is tasked with reselling crime- connected homes seized through the courts. But civil forfeiture is not as simple as it seems.
The house looks out from a hillside some 30 metres up from the Strait of Georgia. From either of the home’s two decks, you can gaze past a sand-and-pebble beach, over rippling tides and out toward the green southern tip of Gambier Island. Beyond that emerge the peaks of the Lions and Cypress Mountain. It’s a million-dollar view, which cost my husband and me much less than that in money but a lot in stress. We had first viewed the home in summer 2008 and loved its open plan, string of water-view windows and seclusion in a forested cove. But we couldn’t afford the $700,000 price. After two years and another owner, the house popped up again on the listings at two-thirds of that amount, and we jumped at it. The reason it was so cheap: it had become a grow-op, one of close to 60 crime-connected houses that were seized and sold in the past year through the dogged work of Peter Ameerali, counsel for the province’s director of civil forfeiture.
Ameerali, charged with making sure the government makes money in its battle against B.C.’s illicit drug trade, is explaining how he got involved in confiscating grow-ops like the one I bought. He is sitting behind his cluttered, Sally Ann-style desk in a Victoria-area office. I have been barred by the Public Safety Ministry from revealing the exact address out of fear that organized crime may want to harm Ameerali. When I visit, not even the security guards at the building’s entry desk know his room number.
The young-looking 32-year-old, a graduate of the University of Victoria’s law school, says he took an interest in forfeiture issues in 2004 while working as an articling student in the Ministry of Attorney General’s civil litigation group. Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act had been in force for two years, and Manitoba was just enacting a forfeiture law. In September of that year, Ameerali became involved in drafting similar legislation for B.C. and continued working on it until after he passed his bar exams in May 2005. Once B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Act became law a year later, Gordon Houston, manager of the Ministry of Attorney General’s civil litigation department, asked Ameerali to handle all forfeitures. In short, Ameerali became the lawyer responsible for getting property seized through the courts. Since then the forfeiture office has expanded to five full-time and four part-time lawyers. As the office’s longest-serving counsel, Ameerali has litigated more grow-op confiscations than any other lawyer in B.C.
His work has included winning a groundbreaking case in which the court forced a dentist to give dental records to the prosecution, dealing with the seizure of the Hell’s Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo, and driving the confiscation of grow-ops as remote as a twice-busted, A-frame house in the woods near Likely, B.C. And Ameerali’s forfeiture work has yielded measurable results: from May 2006 to October 2010, the province sold 75 seized grow-ops. In every instance, the province made money.
The civil forfeiture office has completed $12-million worth of confiscations in the past four years, including seizures of grow homes, drug labs, drug-selling houses, cars, boats, farms, storehouses for stolen property, lairs for many other crimes and hoards of cash. After operational costs, the B.C. government has netted $2 million from that take, with most of the proceeds going out as grants to victims services, crime remediation and crime-stopping measures such as the Con Air program that flies captured criminals back to their home province. The value of forfeited homes has ranged from a few hundred thousand to $1.3 million, but mortgages have to be paid out, and $2 million to $3 million per year has gone into the typically prolonged litigations.
B.C. is not alone in its approach to civil forfeitures. Australia has seized criminal property since 1987. The United States inherited the practice as common law from colonial England and enacted modern forfeiture legislation in 1984. Today the U.S. Treasury and Justice departments together receive about $1 billion per year from property seizures. In Canada forfeiture legislation has been enacted in Ontario, B.C., Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and most recently in New Brunswick. During the last seven years, Ontario seized almost $13 million in property and another $40.7 million awaits resolution in Ontario courts. B.C. runs a close second in the country, with more than 150 property seizures, valued at $30 million to $40 million, currently awaiting resolution.
Of the B.C. forfeitures, Ameerali estimates, about 65 per cent are drug related, and 90 per cent of those are grow-ops. To clear the backlog of files, Ameerali and his team negotiate. Most grow-house owners agree to sign away all or some of the property, and then it gets sold. In the case of our home, 30 per cent of what we paid minus realty fees and related expenses went to the grow-op owners. Usually, the government gets “the lion’s share” of proceeds, Ameerali says.






Save over 50% off the newsstand price with a subscription to BCBusiness Magazine

Civil Forfeiture
Submitted by Walker Brown on Sun, 2011-10-30 15:37.What is wrong with B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Act? Here is a summary:
1. It applies to the commission of provincial offences as well as (federal) Criminal Code offences. There are literally thousands of provincial offences. Almost every piece of provincial legislation has a couple of offence provisions. Provincial offences include minor motor vehicle offences and landlord and tenant offences. Many provincial offences are strict liability. i.e. it does not matter if you intended to commit the act; mens rea or the state of your mind is irrelevant.
2. The typical penalties for most provincial offences are small - fines of a couple of hundred dollars. Penalties for minor Criminal Code offence are also often small fines. These same provincial or Criminal Code offences, however, can result in a civil forfeiture involving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. The penalties are totally out of proportion to the penalty for the offence in the provincial statute or in the Criminal Code.
3. Civil forfeiture allows for an end run around the Criminal Code and the procedures set out in the Criminal Code. Most significantly while the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the standard of proof for a civil forfeiture is the civil standard "balance of probabilities. No wonder the police like civil forfeiture!
4. Civil forfeiture is initiated through the Civil Forfeiture Office. This Office has complete discretion on when and why it initiates a civil forfeiture. While prosecutors have a certain amount of discretion in prosecuting alleged criminal offences they work within well established frameworks - if they choose not to prosecute a matter it is because they do not think they will be successful, not that they do not like the colour of the person’s hair. Although I am not suggesting that the Civil Forfeiture Office will act that whimsically, they will inevitably pick and choose to initiate forfeiture in a highly discretionary manner. Inevitably "publicity" has and will drive forfeitures. Additionally the police can avoid dealing with prosecutors, who might question the legality of an investigation, and go directly to the Civil Forfeiture Office. This became a standard practice in the U.S. and it looks like it is becoming a practice here.
5. Almost all persons charged with criminal offences still have access to legal representation even if they can’t afford to pay for it. Targets of civil forfeiture have not had the benefit of legal aid. They have a choice between a costly legal battle or, if they do not have the resources, to simply give in. The government funded Civil Forfeiture Office has (I’d say typical of all such government offices) illustrated that they will spare no expense to win. If they lose at the B.C. Supreme Court level, they invariably will appeal to the Court of Appeal and (if need be) to the Supreme Court of Canada. Because it is a civil proceeding they will ask for and obtain costs against the forfeiture target. It is a hopelessly one-sided legal battle for the forfeiture target.
6. The Civil Forfeiture Office keep the proceeds of the forfeiture. Yes, they can distribute some of the windfall to a party who been at the wrong end of an offence and yes they will distribute some of the money to good causes but most of the money they will keep for the benefit of the Office. There are many reasons why such a situation invariably leads to abuse.
7. When bureaucrats write laws they invariably make them very one-sided. The B.C. Civil Forfeiture Act IS VERY ONE-SIDED with sweeping definitions and few guarantees of fairness and reasonableness.
While the B.C. Government think that they have invented the wheel, civil forfeiture has been around for a long time in the U.S. It reached the height of its popularity in the 1990's. A catalogue of abuses resulted in some cutting back of the federal legislation in 2000 and it has continued to go out of favour. The same kind of abuses that occurred in the U.S. are now taking place in B.C. and will continue to take place in B.C. until the law is severely restricted. Check out the Juricana blog for more comment on B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Act.