The Yukon Party government bowed to public and political pressure Wednesday and voted to delay a bill which would give the territory sweeping powers to seize property believed to be the proceeds of crime, without a criminal conviction or even laying a criminal charge.

"What a difference two weeks makes,” NDP Leader Liz Hanson told a news conference this morning of the government's about-face on the proposed Civil Forfeiture Act.

Hanson credited opposition pressure, the media and a raft of concerned citizens calling themselves Yukoners for Civil Freedom, who yesterday gathered several hundred signatures on a petition demanding the government quash the bill.

For the territory, such legislation would enable the Justice department to take ownership of money, vehicles, houses and other property suspected of being connected to unlawful activity.

While the same power exists in the federal Criminal Code, subject to a criminal conviction, the Civil Forfeiture Act would allow the territory to seize property by suing for it in civil court.

The New Democrats stopped short, however, of saying the proposed law should be abandoned, and former NDP leader Todd Hardy said that should be up to the public to determine.

"If it's not appropriate for the Yukon territory, then deep-six it, but let the public be engaged in it,” Hardy told reporters.

Liberal MLA Don Inverarity, whose party joined the NDP last week in calling for safeguards in the act to protect innocent people from being ensnared, took a similar view.

"There may be some merit in (scrapping it) if Yukoners felt the whole act should be pulled,” Inverarity told the Star. "I think there's room there to have a Civil Forfeiture Act ... but let's make sure we do it right.”

In addition to the low standard of proof required to seize property – based on the civil standard of "balance of probability” versus the more rigorous "beyond a reasonable doubt” required in Criminal cases – the proposed act is rife with provisions which conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These include a 10-year retroactive clause and another statute which allows for property seizure even in the event somebody is found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity.

Ontario was the first province in Canada to introduce such legislation – known there as the Civil Remedies Act – and since 2003 has seized upwards of $10 million in cash and property.

Outlaw biker gangs appeared the primary target of the Civil Remedies Act; however, the potential for the law to be misused is what worries opposition parties in the territory, and liberty advocates nationwide.

Following a Supreme Court decision last year upholding Ontario's right to seize cash and property believed to be the proceeds of drug dealing, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), an intervener in the case, offered the following assessment:

"We have always had real concerns not only with the constitutionality of forfeiture legislation, but also with how it has been implemented by provinces,” Grace Pastine, then-litigation director for the BCCLA, said in a statement following the Supreme Court's April 2009 ruling.

"There continues to be a real risk that the legislation will be inappropriately used to by-step Charter protections that are available to individuals in criminal proceedings.”

Earlier this year in Alberta, a woman had to appeal to civil court to recover her condominium which was seized after her son, who was living in the condo, was arrested for Internet fraud.

In this case, the woman had to prove she did not know her son was using the condo for criminal activity.

Designed to dovetail with the territory's Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act (SCAN) which allows the eviction and lease nullification of tenants based on suspicion of drug dealing, prostitution or running a gaming house, the forfeiture act goes one step further.

In 2007, the NDP was instrumental in bringing SCAN to fruition, but Hardy said the way the Civil Forfeiture Act is currently written is more than problematic.

"This (legislation) is far more draconian than SCAN, whose track record is exceptionally good,” he said.

Albeit successful in closing down a known Whitehorse drug den in 2008, SCAN failed its first test in Yukon Supreme Court last year.

In that case, Justice Earl Johnson overturned an eviction notice for suspected drug dealing because in his view, it was based on "weak” evidence.

The entire process was rushed, Johnson noted in his decision, and the director of public safety and SCAN investigations should have taken more time to prepare the case, and have it approved in court, rather than approving it himself.

Early this month, Justice department spokesman Dan Cable told the Star the Civil Forfeiture Act provided for a court-driven process and that a judge, not the director of public safety, would decide whether personal property could be seized.

Premier Dennis Fentie said in a statement that delaying the legislation will provide time to have meaningful public consultation on its implications for Yukoners.

"It should be recognized that Bill 82 is a ‘child of the legislature' itself, as it emanated from a motion that was passed unanimously in the Yukon Legislative Assembly on December 16, 2009,” Fentie said.

"The government will only proceed with this bill when we get it right.”