Article content continued

Unlike most targets of civil forfeiture in Canada, Mr. Mihalyko fought back. His case went to Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, where a judge decided he really wasn’t much of a drug dealer. The Oxycontin sale was an “isolated incident,” the judge found, and the truck seizure was “disproportionate to the offence.” The judge said Mr. Mihalyko should have his truck returned to him.

Most people just seem to cave when faced with these lawsuits

But the Crown appealed. In April, 2012, a panel of three judges found Mr. Mihalyko’s offence to be considerably more serious than the trial judge had indicated. The appeal was allowed, and Mr. Mihalyko’s truck was lost for good.

“I find it was extreme, unfair and basically gives the government a licence to steal,” Mr. Mihalyko told reporters after the appeal court decision.

His lawyer, Brad Tilling, said Mr. Mihalyko went as far as he could before finally succumbing to “a very powerful instrument.”

His case is not unusual. Civil libertarians, defence lawyers and some judges are raising concerns about the use of civil forfeiture in Canada. Seven provinces have enacted legislation allowing authorities to seize and then dispose of an individual’s private property, even in cases where illegal activities have neither been proven, nor charges laid.

It’s difficult for regular citizens to seek redress; the costs of defence can be prohibitive. Mr. Mihalyko was the first person in his province to actually challenge a civil forfeiture.

Members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club in B.C. seem prepared to spend large sums on legal challenges. They have their sights set on civil forfeiture. Joe Arvay, a prominent constitutional lawyer, admits the bikers may not seem “the most sympathetic” of clients, but they have an important case, he says, and it’s going to be made soon in B.C. Supreme Court. At issue are property rights and basic constitutional protections afforded all Canadians.