Bill 23 renames Alberta’s Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act as the Civil Forfeiture and Restitution Act and rewrites important parts of the province’s asset-forfeiture framework. It expands the statutory definitions used in forfeiture proceedings, creates new presumptions for designated offences, changes how restrained property moves through court proceedings, and establishes a Civil Forfeiture Fund.
The bill also changes procedural safeguards and remedies. Respondents receive a defined 30-day window to seek review of a restraint order, but appeals from review decisions must be filed within 15 days and automatically stay certain returns of property.
The government gains broader authority to manage forfeiture proceeds, while victims, public entities and other claimants face revised rules for establishing their interests.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the existing statute’s name and reorganizes its terminology around civil forfeiture, restitution and public entities. It creates a Civil Forfeiture Fund, extends some investigative and property-control periods, establishes new statutory presumptions for designated offences, and revises court procedures for restraint, forfeiture, disposal and appeal.
Who It Affects
The changes apply to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, peace officers, investigators, public entities, property owners and other respondents in forfeiture proceedings. They also affect property victims, the Crown, organizations delivering victim services and anyone asserting an interest in property connected to an illegal act.
Why It Matters
The bill moves forfeited proceeds into a dedicated statutory fund rather than leaving their use primarily to the general payment-and-grant provisions. It also makes civil forfeiture more administratively structured while tightening deadlines and limiting appeals, creating a system that may resolve property disputes more quickly but leaves less room for procedural delay.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 23 applies to property in Alberta, illegal acts committed in Alberta, and conduct outside Alberta that would have been illegal if committed in Alberta. It adds definitions for the Civil Forfeiture Fund, peace officers, property victims and public entities. “Public entity” is broader than the previous reference to a public body and includes police services, government departments, agencies, boards, commissions, Crown corporations and prescribed entities.
The bill separates two recurring forfeiture situations: property acquired through illegal means and property used, or likely to be used, as an instrument of illegal activity. It authorizes regulations to identify specified property-acquisition offences and specified bodily-harm offences.
Once an offence is designated, the legislation deems the relevant connection to property or harm to exist for specified purposes, including legal actions under Part 1.1. The bill also clarifies that property derived from the sale or disposition of tainted property can fall within the instrument-of-illegal-activity framework.For administrative disposition proceedings and court-supervised restraint, the bill gives public entities possession or control of property a more explicit role.
A peace-officer direction that would otherwise expire after 10 days can last 30 days. When a respondent challenges a restraint order, the respondent must apply within 30 days of service and cannot seek review after the property disposal hearing begins.
The Minister may answer with additional affidavit evidence, and the court may send the matter directly to a disposal hearing where the evidence is incomplete or doing so serves the interests of justice.The bill changes the consequences of procedural non-compliance. A respondent who misses a hearing, fails to answer questions, withholds required information or disobeys a peace-officer direction can still lose rights in restrained property, but the respondent may apply to set aside the forfeiture.
That application must establish a reasonable excuse, prompt action after learning of the forfeiture and filing before a property disposal order. The bill also permits courts to order dangerous or illegal property modified or destroyed rather than returned.The new Civil Forfeiture Fund receives forfeited property proceeds, money paid to the Crown under the statute, legislative appropriations, advances from the General Revenue Fund, repayments and court- or settlement-related amounts.
The Minister must maintain separate accounting records and may use the Fund for victim programs, crime-prevention activities, litigation and property-management costs, payments required by court orders or settlements, compensation for actual loss connected to restrained property and Fund administration. Payments to the Crown or a prescribed public entity for specified public-protection costs remain outside the Fund.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A 30-day peace-officer possession or control period replaces the previous 10-day period for certain directions involving property later subject to disposition proceedings.
A respondent has 30 days after service of a restraint order to seek review, but cannot apply once the property disposal hearing has started. The court may refuse review and send the matter directly to that hearing where the interests of justice require it.
Appeals from orders allowing or dismissing a restraint-order review must be filed and served within 15 days, rather than the general 30-day period, and stay any order returning restrained property during that period.
The bill creates a 10-year limitation period for legal actions under Part 1.1 involving an illegal act that has occurred, while removing any limitation period for Part 1.01 legal actions.
No person may claim an interest in property if Canadian or Alberta law makes that person’s possession of the property unlawful.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Renaming the statute and defining its reach
The bill changes the statute’s name to the Civil Forfeiture and Restitution Act and replaces chapter V-3.5 with chapter C-15.2. It adds definitions for the Fund, peace officers, property victims and public entities, and states that the Act covers Alberta property, Alberta illegal acts and comparable conduct occurring outside Alberta.
The new application clause gives the statute an express territorial foundation. The expanded public-entity definition also allows the Act to refer consistently to government and law-enforcement bodies beyond traditional police services.
Creating offence-based forfeiture presumptions
The bill authorizes regulations to designate specified property-acquisition offences and specified bodily-harm offences. For a designated offence, the Act deems the required connection to property acquisition or bodily harm for specified forfeiture proceedings. It also extends the instrument-of-illegal-activity concept to property realized from the sale or other disposition of tainted property.
These provisions shift important questions from case-by-case proof toward regulation-defined categories. The practical effect will depend heavily on which offences the regulations designate and how courts apply the resulting presumptions.
Updating administrative disposition and property control
The amendments revise when administrative disposition proceedings can proceed, replace references to possession of a public body with possession or control of a public entity, and update service requirements. A public entity that possesses or controls property can retain it while the Minister determines whether to commence a legal action or withdraw from the matter.
The bill extends certain peace-officer directions from 10 days to 30 days. If the direction ends and the property has not entered the administrative-disposition process, the holder generally must return it unless the court orders otherwise.
Identifying affected parties in restraint applications
The affidavit supporting an ex parte restraint application no longer needs to identify every person who may have an interest or may be affected by a property disposal order at the initial stage. Instead, the affidavit must identify people the affiant believes may be affected, and those identified people can be named as respondents.
This change narrows the initial disclosure formulation while preserving a mechanism for adding affected parties. It may make urgent applications easier to prepare, but the government must still identify potential affected persons when the available information supports doing so.
Reworking review, forfeiture and disposal hearings
The bill creates parallel procedural changes for property acquired by illegal means and property used or likely to be used as an instrument of illegal activity. Respondents receive a 30-day review period, the Minister may file responsive affidavit evidence, and the court may direct the matter to a disposal hearing instead of conducting a review. The court may also reject a review based on a technical defect that caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
A respondent who loses rights through non-compliance can seek to set aside the forfeiture, but must act promptly and before a property disposal order. At the disposal stage, a respondent who has not discharged the statutory onus cannot receive property or proceeds unless returning them would clearly be contrary to the interests of justice. Courts may also order dangerous or illegal property modified or destroyed.
Narrowing and accelerating appeals
Most applications, orders and procedural steps under the two principal forfeiture parts remain non-appealable. The bill expressly permits appeals from property disposal orders and from orders allowing or dismissing a restraint-order review.
Review appeals must be filed and served within 15 days. They automatically stay an order returning restrained property, and the property cannot be returned during that appeal period. The shorter deadline and automatic stay protect the status quo but increase the importance of prompt legal advice and service monitoring.
Establishing the Civil Forfeiture Fund
Part 3.1 creates a separately administered Civil Forfeiture Fund. It receives forfeited property and related proceeds, appropriations, advances, repayments and court- or settlement-related payments. The Minister must maintain separate accounting records, and Fund income becomes part of the Fund.
Permitted uses include victim services, counselling for child victims, crime-prevention programs, payments required by court orders or settlements, property preservation and disposal, litigation, legal services, administration and compensation for actual loss or expenses connected to restrained property. Payments to the Crown or a prescribed public entity for certain safety, health or property-protection costs do not enter the Fund.
Adding procedural and technical safeguards
The bill allows the Minister to bring more than one restraint-order application concerning a property or illegal act. It also creates a 10-year limitation period for Part 1.1 actions concerning an illegal act that has occurred, while removing a limitation period for Part 1.01 actions. Cash or negotiable instruments over $10,000 found in specified circumstances continue to receive a statutory presumption of illegal proceeds, with the amendment broadening the reference from a police investigation to an investigation.
The bill bars claims by people who cannot lawfully possess the property and updates the Victims of Crime Act to refer to the renamed statute. It also protects the Crown from costs awards where property or proceeds return to a respondent only because the respondent established that withholding them would clearly be contrary to the interests of justice.
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
- Property victims may benefit from a clearer statutory path for restitution and from the ability to receive value from property disposed of through the forfeiture process.
- Organizations providing victim counselling, crime-prevention services and related programs may gain access to a dedicated funding stream rather than relying solely on general government payment-and-grant authority.
- The Minister and enforcement agencies gain clearer authority to manage property held by public entities, seek repeated restraint orders and use regulatory offence categories to support forfeiture proceedings.
- The Crown and public entities may recover certain documented costs incurred to protect people, public safety, health or property, with those payments treated separately from the Civil Forfeiture Fund.
- Respondents who miss a procedural requirement but have a genuine reasonable excuse gain an express opportunity to apply to set aside a resulting forfeiture before a property disposal order is made.
Who Bears the Cost
- Property owners and other respondents face longer periods in which peace officers or public entities can retain control of property and face tighter deadlines for challenging restraint orders and review decisions.
- Respondents asserting an interest in restrained property must disclose the origin and extent of that interest and may bear the burden of proving entitlement or the absence of knowledge and involvement in the relevant illegal conduct.
- The Minister’s department must separately account for the Fund, administer its permitted uses and finance litigation, property management, legal services and compensation-related payments from the Fund.
- Courts and court administrators must handle new review applications, direct matters to disposal hearings, assess interests-of-justice exceptions and manage a shorter appeal window.
- Public entities that hold or control seized property may face continuing storage, preservation and management responsibilities while disposition or court proceedings remain unresolved.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to make civil forfeiture faster, more usable and more financially self-contained while preserving meaningful protection for lawful owners and victims. Faster restraint, presumptions and narrow appeal windows improve the government’s ability to prevent dissipation of property, but they increase the consequences of an early mistake and place more pressure on respondents to act quickly and prove their entitlement.
The bill strengthens the government’s ability to preserve and dispose of property, but it does so in a civil process where respondents may have to prove the nature of their interest and lack of involvement or knowledge. The new offence presumptions could reduce litigation over recurring fact patterns, yet they also make the content of future regulations central to the fairness and reach of the scheme.
The bill does not specify those designations in the statute itself.
The procedural architecture favors finality. A 30-day review window, a 15-day appeal window and a stay on property returns can prevent property from moving back and forth, but they leave little room for respondents who receive late notice, lack immediate legal assistance or must assemble financial records.
The ability to seek relief from forfeiture is limited by a prompt-filing requirement and the need to act before a disposal order.
The Civil Forfeiture Fund creates transparency through separate accounting and provides a defined menu of uses, but it also links victim and prevention programming to the volume and value of forfeited assets, appropriations and other permitted inflows. The Minister may use Fund money for substantial enforcement and administration costs, so the amount available for direct victim services will depend on how the statutory categories and regulations are applied.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.