The official Opposition Liberals joined their New Democratic Party counterparts last week in speaking out against the proposed Civil Forfeitures Act and its potential to trample Yukoners' rights.

"This law should not be enacted until Yukoners understand how it might affect them,” acting Liberal Justice critic Don Inverarity said in an April 19 press release.

"What safeguards are in place to protect Yukoners from punitive action?” Inverarity asks.

During Monday's question period in the legislature, Inverarity repeated calls he made last week that the government withdraw the legislation until it consults Yukoners.

But Justice Minister Marian Horne is standing by the Civil Forfeitures Act, and said the government already completed a "targeted consultation” – with the Crown prosecutor's office and the RCMP.

The law is expected to be rammed through the legislature at the close of this spring sitting. It would give the territory sweeping new powers to seize property believed to be the proceeds of crime, without a criminal conviction, or even laying a criminal charge.

For the Yukon, poised to be the ninth jurisdiction in Canada to pass such a law, it would enable the Justice department to take ownership of money, vehicles, houses and other property believed to be earned or purchased through unlawful activity.

While the federal Criminal Code, subject to a criminal conviction, provides the same result, the Civil Forfeitures Act would allow the territory to seize property simply by suing for it in civil court.

During second reading of the bill on April 19, Horne suggested safeguards against "punitive action” against citizens that Inverarity and the NDP are demanding, will be in the Civil Forfeitures Act's regulations.

Horne also said the new bill was just "another way to obtain the proceeds of crime,” as already exists under the Criminal Code.

But the Justice minister failed to acknowledge that in a criminal court, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas the civil standard of proof is based on a "balance of probability,” which is significantly less onerous to achieve.

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, 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.”

But Horne views the Yukon's version somewhat more benignly, as simply "another tool to stop unlawful activity from occurring in (the territory).”

In a March 29 press release, Horne's department suggests the 2009 Supreme Court ruling is evidence the Yukon's civil forfeiture law is in line with the Charter.

One case, however, does not satisfy such a standard, and it is expected that Canada's highest court will be called on to rule on more challenges, resulting from these kinds of civil seizures laws being enforced.

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

In 2007, the NDP was instrumental in bringing SCAN to fruition, but the proposed Civil Forfeiture Act has NDP Leader Elizabeth Hanson urging the government to proceed with caution.

"There's still some recurring issues that come up about civil liberties, and I think we need to be thoughtful and careful as we deliberate this,” she told the Star two weeks ago.

Included in the the Civil Forfeiture Act is a 10-year retroactive clause and another statute that allows for property seizure even in the event somebody is found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity.

Instances where a landlord is renting to a suspected drug dealer or even if a vehicle owner is unknowingly transporting a suspected drug dealer, it is possible for both the landlord and car owner to be ensnared.

Earlier this year in Alberta, a woman had to appeal to civil court to recover her condominium that 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.