B.C.’s civil forfeiture office has settled a handful of controversial cases after recent judicial and public criticism.

Executive director Phil Tawtel, however, maintained in an exclusive interview that his office continued “very much doing what it was intended to do.”

He cited $43 million in seizures since the program began in 2006, $16 million of which was re-invested in crime prevention initiatives or victim compensation.

“Relative to other pieces of legislation, we could call this very fresh and very new,” Tawtel said.

“As the court starts to express their understanding of what the law should be and how it should be applied, then we react to that. We move forward and adopt our policies and practices.”

Over the last few weeks, Tawtel’s office threw in the towel against David Lloydsmith, a disabled Mission electrician fighting the seizure of his house.

The B.C. Court of Appeal in February rejected the office’s appeal of a lower court order that it defend a series of charter breaches that occurred in the 2007 RCMP investigation into allegations Lloydsmith was growing marijuana.

While recognizing the law’s aim, the court worried about the imbalance between the province’s immense resources and those of defendants who don’t qualify for legal aid and may not even have been charged with a crime, but face complicated legal proceedings that could cost them dearly.

Since that decision, the director also settled two other cases in the media eye — one involving an older Burnaby couple whose property was in jeopardy despite a criminal court ruling that a forfeiture would be excessive, and the other against a Nelson-area acreage owner who had not been charged.

Tawtel defended his robust interpretation of the law.

“How does the director apply fairness and proportionality?” he asked, referring to the principles the court said should guide his discretion. “Certainly, from day one that is on our mind, from day one when we are looking at a file … that’s key to us.”

The former Edmonton RCMP investigator said that some Charter breaches “on the surface are not egregious and it’s worth … seeing how it plays out.”

Far from traumatizing defendants, as lawyers claim, litigation provides an opportunity through the discovery process for them to explain, as in, “I know what the police told you but here is my side of the story,” Tawtel said.

Though, he added, “you often can’t get there and get their information until well after litigation has started.”

Lawyers say that entire process is extremely daunting and a very big stick for the government to wield.

“They are making people’s lives a living hell for the period of the litigation and possibly forcing them into a settlement when they know it’s so difficult to prove they haven’t engaged in wrongdoing,” fumed Lloydsmith’s lawyer Bibhas Vaze. “(Defendants) simply throw up their hands and give up. It’s really outrageous.”

Tawtel responded that the vast majority of cases were settled without trial.

“We’re not always being told the truth, Ian, as you can imagine,” he added. “That’s the purpose of going to the courts and evaluating the evidence … part of the discovery process is to get to the truth. In some cases, it becomes clear to us that this isn’t a file that we should be engaged in (and it is dropped).”

B.C. passed the civil forfeiture act in 2006, following in Ontario’s footsteps with legislation modelled on U.S. laws targeting the assets of organized crime.