David Johnson had just pulled out of his driveway, his three-year-old son in the back seat, when RCMP officers swarmed the vehicle and drew their guns.

B.C. Supreme Court heard on Monday that the officers then searched the Johnson home at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac in Surrey, B.C., and Mr. Johnson and his wife were charged with running a marijuana grow-op. The Ministry of Children and Families took their son to live with his grandparents for about three months.

Criminal charges were later dropped after a judge ruled the alleged grow-op was "relatively small" at 267 plants and, at nearly three years, the case had taken too long to get to trial.

Story continues below advertisement

But five days after the ruling, the RCMP forwarded the file to B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Office – a government agency that has been criticized for its aggressive attempts to seize homes, vehicles and cash connected to criminal offences, even from people who are not convicted or charged. The forfeiture office began proceedings to seize $130,000 that was removed from the house during the search.

And so, nearly six years after the raid, the Johnsons were back in court on Monday.

"It's very stressful," Mr. Johnson said outside court. "It just doesn't end."

The Civil Forfeiture Office, in its notice of civil claim, accuses the couple of using a hydro bypass to steal electricity for the marijuana grow-op. It says the search was conducted after a complaint from B.C. Hydro to the RCMP. The notice of civil claim also suggests Mr. Johnson told a neighbour and the person to whom he later sold the house that he had a grow-op.

A lawyer representing the Civil Forfeiture Office declined comment outside court. The hearing is scheduled to run for three days and the office has not yet had an opportunity to respond.

The Globe and Mail has reported extensively on B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Office. Critics have called the office a cash cow, and it has seized millions of dollars more than a similar office in Ontario, despite opening three years later.

The court heard on Monday that police conducted the searched on June 11, 2009. Mr. Johnson and his son had been on their way to Tim Hortons when officers moved in. It was 7:30 a.m., and Ms. Johnson, believing it must be her husband knocking on the door, and answered in her pyjamas.

Story continues below advertisement

Lawyers for the couple told the court the search was "invalid" and the manner of the search "unreasonable." Matthew Jackson, who is representing Mr. Johnson, said the RCMP warrant covered only a search for suspected theft of electricity, but officers tore through the entire property nonetheless.

Officers removed a portable safe that contained $130,000 in cash. The safe also had intimate photos of the couple that have not been returned, Mr. Jackson said.

The couple sold their house shortly after the search and moved to another municipality.

Mr. Jackson said the search violated the couple's Charter rights, as does the fact that proceedings continue so long after the raid. He said the Johnsons still suffer financially and emotionally.

Bibhas Vaze, the lawyer for Ms. Johnson, questioned why RCMP forwarded the report to the Civil Forfeiture Office at all. He accused the office's director, Phil Tawtel, of "seeking to do an end-run around accountability for police."

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Vaze told the court the allegations involving Charter violations should be dealt with first. A finding that the couple's rights were violated would mean the forfeiture office's case likely would not succeed.

Story continues below advertisement

The Civil Forfeiture Office usually opposes such requests, saying the Charter issues can be debated during the trial. Critics have noted it is much more expensive for people to go through a full trial than a Charter hearing that could eliminate the need for a trial.

Outside court, when asked why such a large sum was in the house, Mr. Johnson laughed and said, "I don't believe in banks. I've never had a bank. I don't trust them." He also said he has never used a computer.

Mr. Johnson and his wife said it is unclear whether their son remembers several officers storming the family vehicle.

"We don't ever ask him because we don't want it to be fresh in his mind. We were hoping he would forget guns being drawn on him," Mr. Johnson said.