Alberta (Minister of Justice) v Kravets, 2021 ABQB 324

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Alberta (Minister of Justice) v Kravets, 2021 ABQB 324 Date: 20210426 Docket: 2103 04912 Registry: Edmonton Between: Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta Applicant - and - Neil Jeffrey Kravets, Brandon Scott Worsley, Joseph Gunther Nicholson, Brandon Edward Brown, Richard Joseph Sansoucy, Shadow Transportation Ltd., J-Link Transportation Ltd., John Lu, Zhenyong Yang, Suck Hwan Han, Mee Ryung Han and the Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr.

Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Alberta Minister of Justice applies ex parte for a restraint order pursuant to the Civil Forfeiture Act, SA 2001, c C-15.2 ( CFA ) in respect of three motor vehicles and $518,585.00 cash seized in a drug investigation which resulted in criminal charges against several of the respondents. [ 2 ] All of the property in respect of which the restraint order is sought has been in the possession of the Edmonton Police Service since it was seized. There is no danger of its dissipation or removal from the control of the EPS.

The restraint order is not sought to respond to any such danger. It is sought because the procedure created by the CVA appears to require that a restraint order have been granted before the Minister can apply for a disposal order. [ 3 ] The extensive materials filed on this application indicate that criminal proceedings are in progress against several of the

respondents. They do not, however, indicate the current stage of those proceedings. There is an indication that there was to be an appearance in the Provincial Court on April 23, 2021. But they do not say what the purpose of that appearance was. [ 4 ] In Alberta (Minister of Justice) v Zervos , 2018 ABQB 154 , I dealt with an application for the same relief made by the same applicant in almost the same circumstances. I declined to grant the order sought. I gave detailed reasons for my conclusion that it should not be granted. I came to the same conclusion in Alberta (Minister of Justice) .

Mohamed , 2018 ABQB 897 and Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) v Swanton , 2019 ABQB 635 . None of these cases was mentioned, let alone distinguished, in the written materials filed on this application. [ 5 ] I note that Moreau C.J.Q.B.A. expressly disagreed with my analysis of what I believe are unjust procedural flaws in the statutory procedure in respect of a restraint order in Minister of Justice v Kress , 2018 ABQB 573 .

I expressly responded to that criticism in Mohamad . [ 6 ] The applications in Zervos , Mohamad and Swanton were made under the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act, SA 2001, c V-3.5 ( VRCPA ). As noted, this application is made under the CFA . [ 7 ] The Alberta Legislature changed the name of the VRCPA to the CFA in the fall of 2020. The change took effect on January 1, 2021.

The same Bill (Bill 38) which changed the name broadened the definition of “illegal act” contained in s. 1(2) of the Act and removed parts of VRCPA which dealt with the use of funds obtained by the government from forfeited property. The Minister’s application materials also did not mention these legislative changes. [ 8 ] None of the provisions of the VRCPA which establish the procedure of which I was critical in the previously cited cases have been changed in the renamed CFA .

I have not located any publicly available materials which indicate that the criticisms which I made in those cases were considered when the statute was “opened” for amendment. [ 9 ] As the relevant provisions of the CFA are exactly the same as the provisions of the VRCPA which I concluded are procedurally unjust in Zervos , Mohamad and Swanton, the reasoning I applied in those cases applies to this application. [ 10 ] I have one more observation which I consider it appropriate to make. The divergent views of Moreau C.J.Q.B.A. and myself, noted above, are not capable of resolution by the usual means.

The CFA , in s 19.99(1), provides that no order other than a property disposal order or an ancillary order made in respect of a property disposal order, can be appealed. [ 11 ] The application is dismissed. Heard on the 23 rd day of April, 2021. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of April, 2021. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jessica Flanders for the Applicant The Respondents were not given notice of this application