April 17, 2009 | In Law | 2 Comments
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld provincial asset forfeiture laws in a unanimous decision today, rejecting a lawsuit filed by an Ontario university student whose car and money was seized by Toronto police in 2003.
The student - Robin Chatterjee - was found in possession of various pieces of equipment known to be useful in marijuana grow operations, as well as more than $29,000 in cash, all of which was seized by the provincial government.
The police determined that Mr. Chatterjee was probably involved in marijuana cultivation. However; he was never proven guilty. In fact, prosecutors decided not to file charges, due to a lack of evidence. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to see how his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was respected.
But this state of affairs cannot be blamed on today’s Supreme Court ruling. Chatterjee’s argument that provinces have no jurisdiction over criminal law issues was weak to say the least, and the Court really didn’t have much else to go on.
As of now, there’s nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent government (federal or provincial) from seizing property whenever they feel like it. Under Ontario law, prosecutors had only to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused might be involved in criminal activity. They could not have put him in jail on this basis, but there is nothing to prevent the seizure of property.
Think about it. If the government can demonstrate that you have probably broken the law, they can take your house or empty your bank account, without so much as holding a trial.
The only way to correct this frightening threat to liberty is an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 (which currently protects “life, liberty and security of the person”) should be modified to read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, property and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Canadians generally accept that individuals should not be jailed unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, we hold it to be a principle of fundamental justice. But in order for our society to be truly free, we must apply this principle to property as well.
