Fire strikes home targeted by SCAN law
The owner of a Centennial Street home may be out of his house longer than the 90-day eviction that's been brought forward under the Safer Communities and Neighbourhood (SCAN) Act.
By Stephanie Waddell on June 4, 2012
The owner of a Centennial Street home may be out of his house longer than the 90-day eviction that's been brought forward under the Safer Communities and Neighbourhood (SCAN) Act.
City firefighters were called to 1312 Centennial St. at the corner of 14th Avenue at 8:32 p.m., Sunday platoon chief Morley MacKay said this morning.
The fire occurred just a day less than two weeks after Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale issued an order that any illegal activities on the property owned by Marius Moustakas be stopped while awaiting a hearing in July on the 90-day eviction sought by the Department of Public Safety and Investigations.
A notice about the court order was displayed on the property.
This morning, MacKay told the Star the blaze started in the attic near the chimney, with firefighters being called by the homeowner.
When the approximately nine firefighters arrived, smoke was coming out of three windows in the attic.
Due to the home's age and the way it was built, firefighters had to cut four holes into the roof to get into the attic Sunday night.
They left the scene at 11 p.m., but were back at midnight to make sure it had been fully extinguished.
While it appeared to be completely out, at 5:47 a.m. today, firefighters were called once more, as the blaze had started again.
"That's not uncommon,” MacKay said.
It only takes one spark sitting inside a piece of wood to ignite a blaze again, especially in a building that's about 50 years old like this one where the wood is very dry.
Officials say the fire does not appear suspicious.
MacKay estimated the damage to the house to be between $70,000 and $80,000, with another approximately $15,000 to $20,000 damage its contents.
The temporary eviction of the homeowner would be the first such action to be taken under SCAN.
The case won't be heard until next month.
In making his most recent ruling, however, Veale found there was "reasonable inference” that the property was being used for the consumption or sale of liquor, contravening the territory's Liquor Act.
The judge also ruled the activities were having an adverse effect on the community.
Court documents show a complaint alleging bootlegging came into the SCAN offices last Dec. 30.
Video surveillance of the property was set up. Over a period of 87 hours from Feb. 16 to 20, there were 70 visits to the home, with most lasting between four and five minutes, the court documents read.
Another 86 visits, also most between four and five minutes, happened between Feb. 27 and March 5.
SCAN legislation was enacted in 2006, with action being taken in 59 cases. Those have included 30 warnings and 29 evictions of rental properties where landlords have assisted.
Under SCAN legislation, a case allowing for eviction can be made without being required to meet the same legal test necessary for a criminal case.
Comments (23)
Up 0 Down 0
mike on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Thank you to Scan and the RCMP for doing a great, heroic job on the streets. Lets keep going though, Lots of low life dealers/bootleggers in this city..
Up 0 Down 0
bobby bitman on Jun 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm
I love SCAN. Keep up the good work! And why is this person not in court facing jail time if the police conducted an investigation and caught him selling booze and drugs?! I'd like to see his neighbours relieved of his presence, and to see him in jail.
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on Jun 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
This is a good one, financial reasons, yes everyone knows if you don't pay for it you are evicted. Im glad you understand that so well BUT this is something totally different. Please read your precious SCAN act and you will see the broader scope of things.
Digital evidence, yes that was presented in a court of law and prosecuted the correct way, very different then SCAN which requires minimal evidence at best to throw you out of your house.
Paid for his home with booze sales. Wow, do you know the guy? Do you know his financial statements, if so, why do you know? I don't know the guy personally but I do know he lived for at least 20 years, maybe more and before this incident, there was no problem with him. Maybe we can understand his role in this if it was presented in a Court of Law so he can argue his side. Lady Justice may be blindfolded but she is not blind.
Read a story: And yes its still and is currently being/going to be challenged so SCAN's true role can actually be defined. No act or law has ever "stood the test" because each case is different with more or less evidence. When you get charged for stealing and you plead not guilty, its the onus on the Crown to prosecute you. If laws and acts stood the test, most of the Canadian population would be locked up because there would be no point in challenging it. I love a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty, thats the beauty of our free society.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/11/07/ns-safer-communities-appeal.html
www.pacsw.ca/docs/iss-scan-brief.rtf
Please read: SCAN is a simple act to bypass the CC of Canada. Sure it has some good tendencies, but I do not like how it can make anyone a "criminal" without a proper definition.
I also agree with citizens to be more active in their community, but when will it stop. After all its cheaper to make citizens tattletales then paying RCMP officers to patrol the streets. SCAN discards more complaints then it has "convictions". Truth be told, its a simple device to make the population do the dirty work and for a cheap price while also installing a sense of distrust with your neighbours.
One of these days, SCAN will run into the wrong person, that loser with a ton of money and will have a sudden urge to hire that lawyer you wanted me to talk too and fight this absurd act.
After all it doesn't solve any problems, just moves them.
Up 0 Down 0
Billy Polson on Jun 13, 2012 at 11:00 am
Thanks for all the clarification Arn...hope the Mods let this through
Up 0 Down 0
flyingfur on Jun 13, 2012 at 4:54 am
Arn: You missed several points here. A reference to a financial reasons for being evicted was to simply show that there are many ways and many different authorities that can result in you being evicted from your home, SCAN is just one of many. Secondly video taped evidence, digital evidence, etc is more than sufficient to support a conviction. Go ask a lawyer or maybe the guys that were recently convicted on digital evidence of poaching in the Yukon. SCAN has been challenged in Canada's courts and has stood the test and has not been considered in contravention of the Charter. Have a remark on that of any value? This guy owns his home...but from the evidence he's paid for it by selling booze and drugs people in our community and turned his neighborhood into a hazard by his choice to take part in illegal activity.
Up 0 Down 0
Around the corner on Jun 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm
My post that started with @arn anderson was edited and I had at least 75% of my post removed.
This is the last time I will be posting on this site, it really takes away from a post when you bash most of what someone says only to have it removed (by the moderator) and the small part at the end where you agree added. Very nice. I essentially disagreed with him in everything he said.
I do think SCAN is a joke and that the police should be investigating this person much more seriously.
Again this is my last post and with that my last purchase (every paper for years) of the star. You've got to love having the majority of a post censored. (it mentioned that selling alcohol was the nicest thing being done out of that home.)
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on Jun 12, 2012 at 9:13 am
Flying fur, not paying your mortgage, is that your best, this guy OWNS his home and the SCAN act can evict you for lousy booze offences, ha! Maybe the SCAN act should cover parking offences, watch your home seized because you didn't put a looney in the meter. Video tapes, wow, have all the tapes you want, you need hard evidence, but then again with the SCAN act all you need is some trumped up charges to evict people out of their own homes.
Ken Putnam, challenge the "rants" points, your comment is 100% inept.
The point is, homeowners rights and the Charter of rights and freedoms that protect US from the government is seriously being side-stepped here. Some of the people here are willing to throw away their rights to blissfully feel a little safer.
That's what the RCMP, other law enforcement agencies and the Criminal Code of Canada is supposed to do. And the person is supposed to have a FAIR trial based on innocent until proven guilty. These words mean little to people nowadays but that's what our society is based on. Live with it and stop watching Simon Cowell TV.
SCAN is just an experimental tool and I guarantee you Billy Polson, once all those losers are rounded up, that Act will still be in place and not discarded because that act will look for "new" losers to fit its category.
Up 0 Down 0
Billy Polson on Jun 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Arn....SCAN deals with losers who break the law..
Up 0 Down 0
Around the corner on Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm
@ arn anderson
Though I do fully agree with you on the point you made regarding SCAN and if all this man was doing was selling alcohol after hours without a license I really wouldn't give two ****s.
Again...SCAN is ridiculous.
Up 0 Down 0
Northone on Jun 11, 2012 at 9:41 am
I agree with those that are critical of the SCAN legislation. The idea that anyone could be evicted from a home they own without the due process of a criminal trial is deeply disturbing. Civil court, where SCAN hearings are heard, has a much lower threshold for proof. I doubt the SCAN legislation would withstand a charter challenge. Sad to see so many supporting this draconian and fascist legislation.
Up 0 Down 0
Anonymous on Jun 11, 2012 at 8:53 am
I find this a little crazy that this SCAN law is allowed to take place when Bill C10 had similar language included to allow this type of enforcement and the public was outraged and we were told it would not go through.
Up 0 Down 0
Ken Putnam on Jun 11, 2012 at 7:40 am
Arn Anderson you are 100% wrong. Your rant is beyond belief.
Up 0 Down 0
flyingfur on Jun 11, 2012 at 6:49 am
Arn: Just one "clowns" point of view but consider this: the video and other evidence gathered about this person was significant and presented to a judge of the Yukon Territorial Court before the eviction notice was created. Selling alcohol and prescription drugs to minors was also observed. SCAN legislation is found in just about every other province and territory in Canada and although challenged in the courts several times has not been found to contravene the Charter. Lots of non-criminal actions can have you evicted, like not paying your mortgage, which in comparison are far less serious than turning your neighborhood into a drive-thru for illegal activity. This guy's neighbours have rights too. Bootlegging, especially to minors, is more than just a guy selling a couple of bottles of booze. The evidence, although it applies to civil legislation, is also admissable evidence in criminal proceedings. Just one clowns opinion.
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on Jun 11, 2012 at 2:33 am
You clowns are missing the point, totally. This isn't about drugs, this is about a person who bought booze legally and turned around to sell it afterhours without a license. Without a license people, LISTEN.
The SCAN law is totally outrageous and should be scaled back. This person OWNS his home and this law can evict YOU FROM YOUR OWN HOME without proper criminal evidence. That is totally wrong, maybe the SCAN law should start applying to people who have a beer on their deck, how far will it go.
Lets idolize a law that tramples homeowners right and the charter of Canada rights in the name of a guy who sold some booze out of his home.
Up 0 Down 0
logan W on Jun 8, 2012 at 9:48 am
Johnjack, if you are a straight and outstanding citizen, who abides by societies law, you should not have to be worried about scan. They're there for all of us who are good citizens of the north.
To scan, Your doing a great job and i hope more dealers are shut down fast.
Up 0 Down 0
Tha Gravedigga on Jun 8, 2012 at 9:00 am
This is directed towards "are you seriously defending a drug dealer??"
While Jackies arguments certainly are flawed and I feel she blames other things for people using drugs, your rational to blame someone else for your past drug use is some what sad. Are you still dealing with these issues and can't bare to face the truth? Even in AA they teach you that you can't just blame someone else for your actions. Friends and aquaintances may have influenced you but ultimately it is up to you. And no matter what governments do there will always be a market for drugs. People know about them and want them...
Up 0 Down 0
JayManc on Jun 7, 2012 at 9:32 am
@Johnjack- the right to rid criminals away from their home is justified to bad he's not going to jail, as far as I'm concerned i think he's pretty lucky only being evicted, I would choose other means of dealing with that sort. the right is for everyone else in the world to bud.
@are you seriously- hmm, if you were to manage to round up all the drug dealers and arrest them, put them in jail what not, burn all the product and seize all the other items used in dealing, than what happens is someone else will start to sell it and so on and so forth. addicts will do ANYTHING for their stuff making a very profitable business to get into for the dealers to supply the addicts. and PS if the guy who got your weed wasn't there you would have asked someone else!
Up 0 Down 0
Yukon Hootch on Jun 7, 2012 at 4:13 am
JohnJack - No, it's definitely not a commy country but it is Canada so fyi, he does not have the right to enable people to drink underage and use drugs. His neighbors didn't ask to live next door to scum either.
Up 0 Down 0
are you seriously defending a drug dealer?? on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:55 am
@ Jackie Ward...really?? A drug dealer is like a plumber? What I do know is that if there was no one selling the stuff then...it would be harder to find.
And PS I have seen cigarette and alcohol bootleggers...I used to get my booze and cigarettes from these adults (that had real actual bootlegging business running out of their homes) when I was a teenager...had they not provided an easy way to find them..I may not have been able to find them. I also had a drug dealer who knew how to get me weed cause as a kid in the suburbs he (and his counterparts) were the only way for me to find them.
Wake up and use your brain.
Up 0 Down 0
johnjack on Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 am
What gives you the right to kick anyone out of their own home - you have gone too far this is not a commy country.
Up 0 Down 0
Jackie Ward on Jun 5, 2012 at 9:59 am
You will get rid of the hard stuff when people stop using it. Why does society hide behind a cloak of ignorance? It's always the big bad drug dealers who are to blame. But anyone with at least 1 brain cell would know that the big bad drug dealer is not the problem. Just like your local plumber. Providing a service that is demanded. And as long as drugs are illegal the problem will only get worse. But we know the RCMP could lobby Ottawa and remove the criminal element from drugs. But common sense and logic don't fill up jails, right? Why can I buy booze and smokes? 2 very harmful substances. When was the last time you met a cigarette bootlegger? That's what I thought.
Up 0 Down 0
Around the corner on Jun 5, 2012 at 6:13 am
Over the weekend and today (tues, june.5) I noticed that this person still had people coming and going from his house, some staying no more than 5 minutes.
While eating a hot dog from the girl guides who were selling food across the road from him, I did notice 1 vehicle pull in and out in the space of about 3-4 minutes. Combined with the vehicles I saw pull in while I was walking my dog today (not there while walking back 10 minutes later), I would say things have not changed that much for this individual.
Up 0 Down 0
Mark on Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 am
Great work scan, but lets do a bit more to get the hard crap off our streets