The Victims Statutes Amendment Act, 2013 makes two significant changes to Alberta’s victims legislation. It redesigns the review process for decisions about financial benefits and death benefits, giving the Review Board broader investigative and decision-making powers while requiring clearer disclosure and participation rights for applicants.
It also creates an administrative route for forfeiting certain personal property believed to have been acquired through illegal means or used in illegal activity. The process can avoid a court action if no claimant objects within the statutory period, while preserving a route to court for people who had a reasonable excuse for missing the deadline.
Related amendments tighten evidence and adjournment rules in existing forfeiture proceedings and create a presumption for certain cash and negotiable instruments valued above $10,000.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act replaces the existing victim-benefit review procedure with a request-based process that permits the Review Board to obtain technical and medical assistance, screen out weak or abusive requests, refer matters back to the Director, and confirm, vary or rescind decisions. It also permits the Minister to begin an administrative disposition proceeding for qualifying personal property held by a public body, subject to notice and objection procedures.
Who It Affects
Victims and other applicants for financial benefits or death benefits receive revised notice, disclosure and review rights. The changes also affect the Director, the Review Board, police services, public bodies holding seized property, people claiming interests in property, and respondents in court-based forfeiture proceedings.
Why It Matters
The Act moves parts of Alberta’s forfeiture system away from a fully court-driven model and gives the government a faster path to dispose of certain property. At the same time, it formalizes safeguards around notice, bona fide interest holders, missed objections and court review, making procedural compliance central to whether property is retained or returned.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
For victim benefits, the Act changes the vocabulary and structure of review. Applicants make a written request rather than an application, and the Director must provide the Review Board with all information collected or generated about the claim, along with the decision and reasons.
The reviewing official can dismiss a request that is frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith or without grounds. The matter can also go back to the Director if significant new information appears before the Review Board decides it.
The Review Board gains tools that resemble inquiry powers. A panel and its members receive the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act, including the ability to seek advice from people with special technical knowledge and to request further medical information or a medical examination with the victim’s consent.
Once a matter proceeds, the applicant chooses an oral or written review. The applicant receives notice of that choice and can make submissions; the Board may permit oral submissions where there are sufficient grounds.The revised decision provision lets the Review Board address both eligibility and amount.
It may confirm or rescind eligibility decisions, vary certain Director decisions, and increase or decrease the amount of a financial benefit or death benefit under the regulations. A rescinded decision returns to the Director for reconsideration, and the Board’s decision is final subject to the existing appeal provision.
The Act also extends related false-statement, recovery, fund and regulation-making provisions to death benefits, and preserves an oral-or-written choice for certain older review applications.The new administrative disposition process applies to personal property located in Alberta and possessed by a police service or another prescribed public body. The Minister must have reason to believe the property was acquired by illegal means or is an instrument of illegal activity, and must have no reason to believe a bona fide interest holder exists.
The Minister must register and serve a notice where possible, or publish notice when an address cannot be located. A claimant generally has 30 days from the later of completed service and the last publication date to object.
If no objection arrives, the property is forfeited to the Crown without a legal action and the proceeds can fund payments, grants or other statutory purposes.A person who missed the objection deadline can apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench within two years after the dispute period ends, but must show both a reasonable excuse and prompt action after learning of the forfeiture. The Act also makes respondents in court-based forfeiture cases disclose their property claims by affidavit, allows limited extensions and imposes a cost payment of up to $500 for a second extension.
Finally, cash or negotiable instruments worth more than $10,000 found in specified circumstances are presumed to be proceeds of illegal activity unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A Review Board panel may use the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act and may obtain technical advice or request a consent-based medical examination.
The Director must provide the Review Board with all information collected or generated about a benefits or death-benefit application, including the decision and reasons.
A qualifying administrative forfeiture notice triggers a 30-day dispute period measured from the later of completed service and the last required newspaper publication.
A claimant who missed the objection deadline has up to two years after the dispute period ends to seek relief, but must show a reasonable excuse and apply as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the forfeiture.
Cash or negotiable instruments worth more than $10,000 receive a rebuttable presumption of being proceeds of illegal activity when found with drugs, in bulk or otherwise outside the indicators of legitimate business activity, or in prescribed circumstances.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rebuilt review process for victim benefits
These amendments recast the Review Board process around a request for review and require the Director to deliver the complete information collected or generated in relation to the underlying claim. The chair or designate screens the request for bad faith, frivolousness, vexatiousness or lack of grounds before sending it to a panel.
The process also changes the applicant’s procedural position. Once a matter proceeds, the applicant must receive notice of the referral and the choice between an oral and written review. The Board can allow oral submissions for sufficient reason, can obtain technical or medical assistance, and can refer a matter back to the Director when significant new information emerges.
Extending the statute to death benefits
The Act adds death benefits to provisions governing the Victims of Crime Fund, applications, false or misleading statements, recovery of improperly paid amounts and regulatory terms and conditions. An application for a benefit remains subject to reporting the offence to police within a reasonable period, with separate wording for financial-benefit and death-benefit applications.
The practical effect is to place death benefits inside the same administrative architecture as other victim compensation. That alignment matters for repayment, funding and eligibility rules, but the legislation leaves key operational standards—such as payment terms and some application details—to regulations.
Administrative forfeiture without an initial court action
The new Part 1 administrative procedure covers personal property in Alberta that a public body possesses and that the Minister reasonably believes was acquired by illegal means or used as an instrument of illegal activity. It excludes cases where the relevant limitation period has expired, a legal action has already begun, or a court order recognizes another person’s interest or possession right.
The Minister must serve specified people and register a notice in the Personal Property Registry where registration is available. The notice must explain the property, the legal basis for disposition and the objection process. If no objection is filed during the dispute period, the property is forfeited to the Crown without a court action. A bona fide interest holder—defined in part by registration and lack of involvement or knowledge—also functions as an express limit on using this route.
Objections, missed deadlines and claimant remedies
A person claiming an interest can file a prescribed notice of objection. Within 45 days, the Minister must either start a court action under the existing forfeiture provisions or withdraw from proceedings under the Act, then notify the affected parties. The public body holding the property may retain possession during specified 30-day periods while the Minister’s direction is implemented.
A person who missed the objection deadline can apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Relief requires a reasonable excuse, prompt action after learning of the forfeiture and an application within two years after the dispute period. If the claimant succeeds, the Minister must either begin a legal action or withdraw. Depending on what happened to the property, the remedy may be return of the property, payment of proceeds or payment of the property’s fair market value, with limited cost awards available.
Stricter filing rules in court-based forfeiture hearings
The Act requires restraint orders to set out what a respondent must do to claim an interest in restrained property. Respondents must file and serve an affidavit at least five days before a property disposal hearing, but may seek an extension and adjournment. A second granted extension can trigger payment of the Minister’s related costs up to $500, refundable if the respondent’s claim succeeds in whole or in part.
A third extension or adjournment generally requires the Minister’s consent. A respondent who misses the affidavit deadline cannot give oral evidence without a reasonable explanation, and the court must proceed if the respondent also fails to meet the filing or cost requirements. If oral evidence is allowed, the Minister can request an adjournment to question the respondent and seek relevant materials.
Funding authority and presumptions for large cash holdings
The Act authorizes payments from forfeited money for refunds of certain successful application costs and for payments to successful claimants whose property was administratively forfeited. It also authorizes regulations about notices, registry filings and circumstances triggering presumptions.
In a legal action, cash or negotiable instruments worth more than $10,000 found with drugs or drug paraphernalia, in bulk or in circumstances inconsistent with ordinary legitimate business activity, are presumed to be proceeds of illegal activity unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. The definition of drug includes controlled substances, analogues and items a peace officer or investigator reasonably believes to be drugs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims applying for financial benefits or death benefits, who receive a more structured review process, access to the Director’s collected material and a defined opportunity to choose oral or written submissions.
- Applicants whose claims turn on technical or medical evidence, because the Review Board can seek specialized advice and request further medical information or a consent-based examination.
- The Crown and victim-support programs, because forfeited proceeds can be directed toward statutory payments, grants and specified compensation-related costs.
- Public bodies holding seized personal property, which receive statutory authority to retain possession during the objection and ministerial-direction periods rather than resolving competing claims immediately.
- Claimants who can prove a reasonable excuse for missing an administrative forfeiture objection deadline, because the Act provides a court route to set aside the forfeiture and recover property or value in defined circumstances.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Minister and Review Board, which must collect, disclose, screen and administer substantially more procedural material in benefit reviews and forfeiture matters.
- Police services and other prescribed public bodies, which must identify property in their possession, respond to notices and preserve possession while the administrative process runs.
- People claiming interests in seized property, who must monitor service or publication, file a prescribed objection within the dispute period and potentially litigate to preserve their interests.
- Respondents in court-based forfeiture proceedings, who face affidavit deadlines, limits on late oral evidence and up to $500 in costs for a second successful extension request.
- Owners or possessors of large amounts of cash or negotiable instruments found in specified settings, who must rebut a statutory proceeds-of-illegal-activity presumption on a balance of probabilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Act tries to make forfeiture and victim-benefit administration faster and more workable without eliminating fairness safeguards. That requires people with an interest in property or a benefit claim to navigate strict deadlines, disclosure rules and procedural choices—an approach that can reduce delay for the system while increasing the consequences of missed notices, incomplete evidence or limited access to legal assistance.
The administrative forfeiture model is faster than requiring a court action at the outset, but it makes notice and deadline administration decisive. A person who does not object is deemed to admit the facts in the notice, subject only to the narrow missed-deadline remedy.
That creates a practical risk for people with unstable addresses, limited legal knowledge or unregistered interests, even though the Act permits recorded mail, deemed service and newspaper publication when the Minister cannot locate an address.
The Act also draws a line between administrative efficiency and judicial protection. The Minister must use the court-based route when someone objects, but the initial decision to proceed administratively depends on the Minister having no reason to believe a bona fide interest holder exists.
The statute does not require a prior judicial finding that the property was illegally acquired or used; the challenge generally comes after notice, through an objection or an application to the Court of Queen’s Bench.
For victim-benefit reviews, broader disclosure and inquiry powers may improve the factual record but also raise practical questions about confidentiality, medical information and the scope of materials that must be shared. The Review Board must consult the source of information before providing it to an applicant and may remove material identified as confidential, but the Act leaves much of the operational balance to the Board’s procedures and regulations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.