• Our Areas of Practice

    We defend all criminal charges with skill and dedication.

    Vancouver at night

Civil Forfeiture

Have the police seized your property?

Have you received a Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture in the mail, or been served with a Notice of Civil Claim?

Time is of the essence. Call our office now for assistance. 

What is Civil Asset Forfeiture? 

Civil Forfeiture, also known as Civil Asset Forfeiture, is a program operated by the BC Provincial Government under the authority of the Civil Forfeiture Act. The government, through the Director of Civil Forfeiture, files a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court to confiscate assets deemed to be “Proceeds of Unlawful Activity  and “Instruments of Unlawful Activity”.

“Proceeds” refers to profit obtained through unlawful activity, such as:

  • Cash
  • Stolen goods
  • Assets purchased with unlawfully obtained money, such as jewelry, vehicles, and even real estate (land and buildings)

 “Instruments” refers to assets that have been been used to generate unlawful profit or are likely to be used in a manner that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, such as:

  • Vehicles used to sell drugs or steal property
  • Equipment used to manufacture drugs
  • Land and/or buildings used in unlawful operations
  • Vehicles driven in a manner that puts the public at risk

Civil forfeiture is separate and distinct from criminal court proceedings.  

A simple way to understand civil forfeiture is that the PROPERTY is on trial, not the person.

Under the Civil Forfeiture Act, assets can be frozen, possessed by, and forfeited to the Director of Civil Forfeiture even if:

  • You have not been charged with a crime
  • The criminal charges against you have been withdrawn
  • The criminal charges against you have been stayed
  • You have been found not guilty of criminal offence at trial

Criminal charges are a prosecution against a person. Civil forfeiture is a lawsuit against property, offically called an “in rem” proceeding.

In criminal proceedings, you are facing the Crown in criminal court. In civil forfeiture proceedings, you are facing the Director of Civil Forfeiture in civil court. The Crown and the Director are separate and do not have anything to do with each other. 

The Charge

Civil forfeiture is concerned with property. The purpose of the Civil Forfeiture Office is to commence proceedings against assets that has been acquired through unlawful acts (“Proceeds”) or used to commit unlawful acts (“Instruments”). 

Civil forfeiture proceedings typically arise out of drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and theft investigations. However, any unlawful activity that may generate unlawful profit can be subject to civil forfeiture proceedings. 

Civil forfeiture can also be used against property that is being used in a manner that is likely to cause serious bodily harm (ex. dangerous driving) 

Vehicles that that have been used to flee from police or contain an after-market compartment are also subject to forfeiture. 

The Process

1. Police Seizure 

The process begins when the police seize property during an investigation; typically, cash, jewellery, vehicles, and sometimes even real estate (land and buildings). Property must be seized in accordance with the Charter and the Criminal Code, or any other legislation authorizing seizure of property. 

The police have several options regarding what they can do with the seized property. One option available is to forward the property to the Civil Forfeiture Office to be forfeited to the government if there is evidence the property was:

a) obtained illegally
b) used to generate profit through illegal means,
c) used in a manner likely to cause serious bodily harm, or
d) satisfies any of the other enumerated criteria in s. 19 – s. 19.05 of the Civil Forfeiture Act


2. Forfeiture Decision

After the property is forwarded by the police to the Civil Forfeiture Office, the Director of Civil Forfeiture reviews the file and can initiate proceedings to forfeit the property to the government. 

If you are the owner of property valued over $75,000 or the owner of real property (land), the Director of Civil Forfeiture will file a lawsuit against you in BC Supreme Court. They will then serve you with a Notice of Civil Claim. You must then file a Response to Civil Claim with the court registry and fight for your property in a civil court proceeding. 

If the property is under $75,000 in value and not real property, you will be sent a Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture in the mail to your last known address. If you move frequently or do not have a permanent address, the Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture is also published weekly in the BC Gazette under “Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General”

If your property is less than $75,000 and not real property, you must respond to the Notice using the required dispute form within 60 days from the post-mark on the Notice or the date it was published in the Gazette. If you do not respond or if you fill out the form incorrectly, your property is automatically forfeited to the government without further notice on the deadline date. 

If you respond to the Notice of Intent, the Director of Civil Forfeiture must then file a lawsuit against you in BC Supreme Court or return your property. 


3. Court Proceedings

Civil Forfeiture proceedings occur in civil court, not criminal court. 

In civil court, the Director of Civil Forfeiture must prove on a balance of probabilities that the property was used or obtained unlawfully; this means the judge must be only 51% sure that your property is Proceeds or an Instrument of Unlawful Activity. This is different from criminal court, where charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Unlike criminal proceedings, in civil court you may be obligated to provide evidence in your own defence. This may include documents and witness testimony. Further, you do not have the right to not testify in your own defence. You may be compelled to give oral evidence in a civil court process called “Examination for Discovery that can then be used in the civil court proceedings. 

Recent Successes

R. v. B.E. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic) x2.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf and ultimately persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: B & E, Fraud over $5000, Motor vehicle theft; Identity theft, Driving while prohibited (x2).
Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative efforts, what would be the appropriate sentence.
Result:  Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown to make a joint submission for time-served, followed by a period of probation. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on several charges.  After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions on our client's behalf, the sentencing judge noted that he would have ordinarily imposed a lengthy jail sentence for an accused in our client's position, but he accepted the joint submission. No further jail.

R. v. M.A.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of fentanyl and carfentanil for the purposes of trafficking.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Crown that there were issues with respect to the Crown's evidence such that it was unlikely our client would be convicted at trial, and that there was insufficient public interest in continuing to prosecute our client in any case. Given this informaton, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. S.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. D.S. – Whitehorse Yukon Territorial Court

Charge: Section 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) Application.
Issue: Whether the Informant could prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier' communications with the Informant, she declined to advance the case and, on the day of the trial, the court withdrew the Application. No record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there wa sno substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether our client's Charter rights were breached due to unreasonable delay.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately caused Crown  to proceed against our client as the owner and not the driver of the vehicle. He plead to the lesser charge of Failing to Remain under the Motor Vehicle Act and received a fine, but no driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. H.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the complainant held herself out to be at least 16 years of age and whether our client took reasonable steps to ascertain her age.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf that established that our client did take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. In the result, Crown declined to approve any criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Tax Evasion (Excise Tax Act); Fraud Over $5000 x2.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with the investigation, his civil settlement and his genuine remorse, whether a jail sentence was appropriate for this almost one million dollar tax evasion case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide medical and financial information to Crown counsel that ultimately led Crown to proceed on the fraud charges rather than seeking an almost one million dollar mandatory fine under the Excise Tax Act. The Court accepted the joint submission for a 2 year less a day conditional sentence and probation. No jail.

R. v. A.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

The Defence

The Civil Forfeiture Act is a very powerful piece of legislation. It is important to know that fighting the Civil Forfeiture Office will involve a lot of time and effort on your part. 

It is also important to know that there are very strict timelines to file the various documents. It is crucial that you respond to correspondence from the Civil Forfeiture Office immediately. 

You are defending yourself in a lawsuit, and thus the rules of evidence are very different from a criminal prosecution. You will likely have to provide evidence in your defence. The Civil Forfeiture Office does not have to disclose their entire case to you upfront. This is notably different from the rules in criminal proceedings, where the Crown has the onus to prove the case against you and must provide you with disclosure of all the evidence they intend to rely on. 

Preventing proceedings against the seized assets 

If the police have seized your property but you have not received a Notice from the Civil Forfeiture Office, our team will negotiate with the police agency and/or the Civil Forfeiture Office to return your property before they initiate proceedings.  

The Property is not Proceeds and/or not an Instrument of Unlawful Activity 

To defend a civil forfeiture action, you must be able to provide evidence that the property was lawfully acquired. This often involves providing bank statements, pay stubs, and bills of sale. 

You may have to provide evidence that the property was not used to generate unlawful profit or was not used in a dangerous manner. This will involve producing evidence on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances of the allegation. 

Forfeiture is not in the interests of justice 

Proportionality and fairness must govern civil forfeiture proceedings. 

If the Director of Civil Forfeiture files a lawsuit against you, you may be able to argue that the value of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the severity of the alleged offence. 

You may also argue that the forfeiture is unfair. This defence is often used when innocent parties are prejudiced by the forfeiture of the property. Commonly, this defence is used when the owner of the property is unaware that the property is being used unlawfully by someone else. 

Charter Breaches 

The police must obey the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence apply to civil forfeiture proceedings. “Bifurcation” is the term used in civil court to describe the process to argue that the evidence was gathered in breach of the Charter and should be excluded, akin to a criminal voire dire. Our team at Mines & Company has extensive experience making Charter challenges and will pursue every angle to exclude unlawfully gathered evidence. 

Settlement

Criminal proceedings are “all or nothing;” you are either guilty or not guilty. Civil Forfeiture is very different. 

Civil forfeiture is not “all or nothing.” Because it is a civil proceeding, it is possible to reach an out of court settlement to agree to only forfeit a percentage of the property’s value. This is achieved through negotiations with the Director of Civil Forfeiture and may involve participating in formal mediation. Settlement has the benefit of reducing the amount of time and money spent defending against a civil forfeiture action. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a complex and intimidating area of law. Don’t fight it alone.
Mines & Company has the knowledge and the experience to help you recover your seized property. 

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.