SASKATOON, Sask. — Three people who saw their drug trafficking and criminal organization charges stayed in 2024 have lost a constitutional challenge to stop the province from pursuing civil forfeiture of a $700,000 house taken during the criminal investigation.
The civil forfeiture case stems from the same Saskatoon police operation that led to charges against twin brothers Jaeho Lee and Jae Sung Lee, and Jae Sung Lee’s girlfriend, Jessica Tran. They were charged with operating as a criminal organization, possession of the proceeds of crime, trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine, and conspiracy to traffic a controlled substance.
All charges against the three were stayed in November 2024 on a technicality. The stay ended the prosecution, but it didn’t determine what happens to the seized house, which is now the subject of a separate civil proceeding under Saskatchewan’s Seizure of Criminal Property Act (SCPA).
In January 2023, Saskatoon Police Service issued a media release saying in 2021 it had started investigating what it described as a sophisticated, organized crime operation. Officers seized a $700,000 house in Saskatoon’s Rosewood neighbourhood, at 514 Hamm Crescent.
Police also seized about $79,000 in cash, three vehicles — a Mercedes Benz CL250, an Acura ILX and a Nissan Rogue — jewellery, financial documents, and paraphernalia consistent with drug trafficking.
The Director, under The Seizure of Criminal Property Act, later applied to have the items forfeited on a balance-of-probabilities standard that doesn’t depend on a criminal conviction.
Lawyers for Jaeho Lee, Jae Sung Lee, and Jessica Tran argued that the province shouldn't be allowed to use a faster, simplified court process to try to seize their property. They said this shorter process is unfair and violates their rights under the Charter against unreasonable search and seizure. They didn’t challenge the seizure of the house or the Director’s investigative steps.
Justice Beverly L. Klatt ruled that civil forfeiture doesn't trigger Section 8 because it deals with property, not privacy. She said Section 8 only applies when police or government take something as part of an investigation, and the applicants weren't challenging that seizure. Civil forfeiture happens later, in a separate property process that isn't used to gather evidence.
The Attorney General for Saskatchewan intervened and argued that forfeiture orders made under Section 7 of the SCPA aren’t “seizures” under Section 8 of the Charter because they don’t occur in the context of an administrative or criminal investigation. The court agreed, dismissing the applicants’ challenge.
Justice Klatt said civil forfeiture proceedings like those contained in the SCPA are common across Canada and aren’t intended as punishment. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada, she said that the legislation creates a property-based authority to seize money and other things shown on a balance of probabilities to be tainted by crime and to allocate the proceeds to compensating victims and remedying the societal effects of criminality. Its practical and intended effect, she said, is to take the profit out of crime and deter its present and would-be perpetrators.
The decision, released Aug. 31, allows the Director to continue pursuing forfeiture of the Hamm Crescent house.
ljoy@sasktoday.ca
