I will say it again: Your car CANNOT be permanently seized or destroyed without charges.

Quoting nonsense from the AGO's office does not change the facts of the law. We get enough of this garbage in the media.

First, I would encourage everyone to read the ENTIRE press release that superbird linked to. He is creatively quoting in order to further his point. The press release is over a year old (June 2006), and very clearly indicates that those cars were proven in court to be instruments of unlawful activity. Further, the portion of the press release quoted was written by the AGO's communication department, and is targetted for the same effect as the AG's recent remarks - to exaggerate the power of the AGO's office and to frighten people.

Want something to read? Go right to the source. Read the law that the AGO is so creatively interpreting for dramatic effect. The recent amendments to the Civil Remedies Act are all contained in the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act (bill 203).

Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act - Bill 203 <Click Here>

For those of you who want a quick pointer to the relevant section, the following is a direct quote from the law itself:

Forfeiture order
11.2
(1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (4) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting a vehicle to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the vehicle,

(a) was or is likely to be used to engage in vehicular unlawful activity; and
(b) is owned by or is in the care, control or possession of a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for vehicular unlawful activity two or more times in the preceding 10 years.

you are gay... what i said has NO relation to your previous post... DID i quote you??? NO..

impress my daddy?? who the **** are you joking...you think im some ****ing kid...my daddy was in highschool in 84???... yea OK...
besides...84 camaro was bought from a member here well TSR...years ago..since been sold. whats with the "poser" comment... you use it out of context.. like are you calling people poser that beat the hit out of their moms cars??..they are posers?? what exactly are they trying to be?..

THEN you call me a poser??.. how the hell am i a poser??... you wanna know what i drive? SURE... i have an 83 regal...and a 87 442. hows that being a poser ..cuz i dont drive some import peice of and brag about some swap i did...like you...

besides... you havent sen a camaro do more than 95??..where the hell have you been.. obviously sitting in a parking lot with your "cool" car friends talking about your torque steer.. while people with real cars.. run them...

i say that the government worry about whats actually important. and thats getting gangs, drugs, weapons of the streets. look at how many shootings there have been this year. they busted jane n finch ok. but that was one small fraction of what is still left out there.
but then i guess ppl who find an empty street at 2am and make a few safe passes are more life threating then the above

Am I the only one that recongnises that the "balance of prbabilities" is from CIVIL LAW!!!! It has nothing to do with criminal law and the charges of street racing under the HTA. Kazanak is totally right, for them to keep your possesions, you have to be charged and then found that the possesion was used for or is evidence in a crime. A ****ing pig can't just look at your car wrong and poof its gone. Most of the that that bryant spouts off goes against the statute of rights and our charter.

You're absolutely right in that much of what the AGO is trying to convince the public of is directly contrary to the charter.

A minor point however - "Street Racing" under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is not a criminal code offense. This means the burden of proof in such a case is "balance of probabilities".

There are specific street racing-related charges in part VIII of the criminal code of Canada - if you are charged with one of these offenses, by definition, it becomes a criminal matter and the burden of proof becomes "beyond reasonable doubt".

This is a minor, but very important distinction: If you are charged with Street Racing under the Ontario HTA, the crown needs only convince a judge that based on a balance of probabilities, you were street racing - in other words, if the crown can show that you were more likely to have been street racing than not, the judge will convict.