The Justification For Confiscating Property Under Civil Forfeiture

1769 Words 8 Pages
The importance of private property in Canada is evident in the protection offered by the legislature and jurisprudence. Numerous acts, like the Law of Property Act or the Residential Property Act, protect the property rights of an individual. Laws like these prohibit the state, and private citizens, from with interfering another person’s property. However, there are certain circumstances, such as an Anton Piller order, where these rights are not protected. These are justified on the basis that the public interest that seizing the property outweighs the societal protection of property. However, the justification for seizing property under civil forfeiture is not as evident. Which raises the question: given the numerous ways that property is protected, what is the theoretical justification for confiscating property under civil forfeiture? That is, what theory of property does the Albertan legislature rely on to justify the appropriation of property under the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act, SA 2001, c V-3.5?

In this paper, I will explore what theory of property that underlies civil forfeiture in Alberta. I will proceed in the following manner. First, I will consider the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act. After this, I will outline what theory of property appears to be the justification supporting this legislation. Following this, I will turn to analyze whether this justification consistent with the other elements of the Act. To do this,…

Related Documents