 |
 |
|
| Levine Sherkin Boussidan has commenced a class action against the Attorney General of Ontario seeking to strike down a controversial piece of provincial legislation called the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act, more commonly known as the “Civil Remedies Act”. |
|
| The Civil Remedies Act, enacted by the Conservative government in December 2001, empowers the Attorney General of Ontario to seek forfeiture of seized money or other property if the Attorney General can prove to a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on a balance of probabilities, that the seized money or property is a proceed of “unlawful activity”, which the Act defines as a criminal or quasi-criminal offence. This procedure is known as “civil forfeiture”. |
|
| Under the Act, a civil forfeiture application can proceed even in instances where an individual is acquitted of or not even charged with an offence. In order to be found a legitimate owner of the money or property, an individual must prove to the Court that he/she did not acquire the money or property as a result of committing an unlawful activity. |
|
The claim alleges that the Civil Remedies Act is unconstitutional as (i) being enacted beyond the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, and (ii) contravening the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, other provinces such as Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia have either passed or tabled similar forfeiture legislation.
This class action is being viewed as the “test case” for the constitutional validity of civil forfeiture in Canada. |
|
 |
|
| It is anticipated that the action will proceed to certification at some point in the near future. |
|
| The Statement of Claim in the class action can be viewed here |
|
|
 |
|
| It is anticipated that the issue of the constitutional validity of the Civil Remedies Act will proceed before the Court of Appeal for Ontario sometime in early 2006. |
| |
|
