How Nova Scotia has revived its ‘crime shouldn’t pay’ law

A two-decade-old “crime shouldn’t pay” law the Nova Scotia government overhauled last year is now being deployed to more easily seek the forfeiture of tens of thousands of dollars in cash, vehicles ranging from an Audi to Ford F-150s, and even the home of a convicted sex offender.

The Civil Forfeiture Act allows the Department of Justice to sidestep the criminal courts and use lower proof thresholds to target property seized by law enforcement and believed to be linked to illegal activity. There doesn’t even need to be a criminal conviction.

But while the law has been on the books since 2007, forfeiture cases slowed in recent years. Changes introduced last year, with little fanfare, have reversed that trend dramatically.

Sgt. Wayne Ross, who is in charge of the Nova Scotia RCMP’s commercial crime unit, said last year his team referred just three cases to the Department of Justice. This year, so far, there have been 25 or more.

“We’re able to do more referrals, we can do them faster,” he said. “So we can take an increased amount of profit out of crime. And it’s a significant deterrent to people.”

Sgt. Wayne Ross, with the Nova Scotia RCMP’s commercial crime unit, is shown in Dartmouth, N.S., on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026. (Grey Butler/CBC)

The newly written law makes it significantly easier for authorities. It includes a provision called “administrative forfeiture.” For property worth less than $125,000, it’s largely a matter of paperwork.

Notices are mailed to the person from whom the property was seized and to any other known owners, and posted on a government website. There’s a deadline to object, typically about six weeks. If no one does, the property is turned over to the government.

Several dozen notices have been issued in recent months. Many are for vehicles and utility trailers. In other cases, it’s for cash, with amounts ranging from as little as $31.60 to as much as $53,100. There’s also jewelry, including a Rolex watch, diamond rings and necklaces.

Vehicles allegedly used to commit crimes or bought with dirty money have included pickup trucks, a Tesla, snowmobiles, ATVs, a van that transported illegal cigarettes, and a Toyota Tacoma allegedly used to steal a utility trailer.

Forfeited property is then sold, with some of the proceeds going to fund community programs, including those that help youth at risk or the victims of crime. Last month, the provincial government announced $280,000 in grants to eight groups.

RCMP Sgt. Wayne Ross points to photos of cash and vehicles that have been subject to civil forfeiture under provincial law, on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, in Dartmouth, N.S. (Grey Butler/CBC)

But the ease at which property suspected to be connected to crime can now be forfeited is raising concerns. Josh Dehaas, with the civil liberties charity Canadian Constitution Foundation, takes particular issue with the administrative forfeiture provisions.

“These administrative proceedings whereby the government doesn’t have to actually prove anything to a court are really concerning,” he said.

He said the measure became popular in the United States and has now spread to parts of Canada. While it may be easy to assume, for instance, that cash found in the car of a suspected drug dealer is proceeds of crime, there can sometimes be a valid explanation, such as it’s actually the property of a family member uninvolved in illegal activity.

He said the issue is that if people don’t come forward quickly enough to challenge an administrative forfeiture in court, or don’t do so because they are confused by the process or can’t afford a lawyer, the property is simply turned over to the government.

“I think the whole point of the program, frankly, is that governments want to be able to do this even where they can’t prove things beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “So Canadians need to ask themselves if they’re comfortable with that.”

A screenshot from a video shows the Powerscreen Warrior 800, a soil sifter owned by Halifax-area contractor Arni Lively, at work. (Submitted by Arni Lively)

Cases involving property over $125,000, and any targeting houses, buildings or land, must still go through a court process. But even then, things can go sideways.

Earlier this year, a $300,000 soil sifter was returned to a Halifax-area contractor after a court application seeking its forfeiture was dropped by the Justice Department, but not before the businessman had gone months without his machine.

The sifter had been seized as part of an Environment Department investigation into an alleged illegal landfill, but the owner of the equipment asserted he had nothing to do with the operation and was simply leasing land at the site.

Justice Minister Scott Armstrong said an aim of the civil forfeiture legislation is to combat what he views as an uptick in organized crime, particularly in rural areas.

He said he has “great faith” that law enforcement is bringing forward well-investigated cases, but if errors are made there is due process through the courts.

“Civil forfeiture is one avenue that we’re trying to use to try to disrupt organized crime from getting a stronger footing in Nova Scotia,” he said.

A department spokesperson said there are currently six forfeiture cases involving homes, buildings or land valued at a total of $1.5 million.

How Nova Scotia has revived its ‘crime shouldn’t pay’ law

Other changes to the law include “unexplained wealth orders” where suspected criminals can be ordered to detail how they paid for their luxury lifestyles. 

Another amendment presumes that cash, if found near drugs, is the proceeds of crime unless the person can show otherwise. There’s also an amendment that specifically targets sex crimes.

In one case now before Nova Scotia Supreme Court, justice officials are seeking the forfeiture of a Windsor Junction, N.S., home of a convicted sex offender, along with various vehicles he owns.

Robert List, 60, was sentenced last year to eight years and nine months in prison for taking more than 18,000 sexually explicit photos of boys over a three-decade period, and downloading many more.

A Justice Department lawyer is arguing that given many of the photos were taken at List’s address, and that vehicles were used as well, all the property should be forfeited as “instruments of unlawful activity.” List, through his lawyer, is opposing forfeiture.

MORE TOP STORIES

N.S. government orders changes to Halifax planning rules to boost development

CBU coach hanging up his whistle after more than 30 years

School support staff union, province heading back to bargaining table

‘Tread very, very carefully,’ Chender warns as N.S. ponders expanded online gambling

N.S. university teachers’ association says premier is using political intimidation