Not to speak on Shiek's behalf, but this is the stuff he was speaking out against; from today's Toronto Sun
OTTAWA -- The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a law allowing the province to seize alleged proceeds of crime from people who have never been convicted or even charged with an offence.
"There is nothing in the details of the scheme of the CRA ... to suggest that the purpose of the CRA is other than those stated purposes. Nor do we see any merit to the appellant's submission that the true purpose of the CRA is to punish offenders," reads the appeal court's ruling in the test case of the oddly titled Attorney General of Ontario vs. $29,020, Exhaust Fan, Light Ballast, Light Socket and Robin Chatterjee.
Chatterjee and his lawyers challenged the little-known Civil Remedies for Organized Crime and other Illicit Activities Act, passed in 2001, which allows the Ontario government to ask a judge in civil court to order forfeiture of property allegedly obtained through illegal activity.
"Certainly, the pace of seizures under this legislation has increased," said Chatterjee's lawyer, James F. Diamond, yesterday following the release of the decision. "With the sanction of the Court of Appeal I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't continue at the same pace, if not increase."
SEARCHED CAR
Diamond argued unsuccessfully at the appeal court that the law is beyond the powers of the provincial government and is, in fact, under the federal government's jurisdiction to create criminal law.
The appeal court didn't see it that way, saying any overlap was incidental.
Chatterjee was stopped by York Regional Police on March 27, 2003, when they noticed his car's front licence plate missing. Police discovered he had a record and a bail condition to reside in Ottawa. They arrested him and searched his car, finding $29,020 in cash that allegedly smelled of marijuana, as well as a light ballast, light socket and an exhaust fan.
Chatterjee was never charged with marijuana-related counts, but the authorities moved under the act to seize the items.
Diamond said his client is considering whether to seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court
OTTAWA -- The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a law allowing the province to seize alleged proceeds of crime from people who have never been convicted or even charged with an offence.
"There is nothing in the details of the scheme of the CRA ... to suggest that the purpose of the CRA is other than those stated purposes. Nor do we see any merit to the appellant's submission that the true purpose of the CRA is to punish offenders," reads the appeal court's ruling in the test case of the oddly titled Attorney General of Ontario vs. $29,020, Exhaust Fan, Light Ballast, Light Socket and Robin Chatterjee.
Chatterjee and his lawyers challenged the little-known Civil Remedies for Organized Crime and other Illicit Activities Act, passed in 2001, which allows the Ontario government to ask a judge in civil court to order forfeiture of property allegedly obtained through illegal activity.
"Certainly, the pace of seizures under this legislation has increased," said Chatterjee's lawyer, James F. Diamond, yesterday following the release of the decision. "With the sanction of the Court of Appeal I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't continue at the same pace, if not increase."
SEARCHED CAR
Diamond argued unsuccessfully at the appeal court that the law is beyond the powers of the provincial government and is, in fact, under the federal government's jurisdiction to create criminal law.
The appeal court didn't see it that way, saying any overlap was incidental.
Chatterjee was stopped by York Regional Police on March 27, 2003, when they noticed his car's front licence plate missing. Police discovered he had a record and a bail condition to reside in Ottawa. They arrested him and searched his car, finding $29,020 in cash that allegedly smelled of marijuana, as well as a light ballast, light socket and an exhaust fan.
Chatterjee was never charged with marijuana-related counts, but the authorities moved under the act to seize the items.
Diamond said his client is considering whether to seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court