The long-standing legal battle over three properties linked to the Hells Angels in BC has reached its culmination today as the Nanaimo clubhouse faces demolition.
The move comes after a decade-long struggle, culminating in the forfeiture of these properties in April.
In early October, the Supreme Court of Canada officially denied the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, who are known to engage in gang activity, in their efforts to reclaim three properties.
The decision to demolish the clubhouse is part of the government’s ongoing efforts to combat organized crime and create safer communities across BC.
Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, released stating, “Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities, and the forfeiture of these properties is a significant step forward in putting organized crime on notice in British Columbia.”
The process leading up to today’s demolition involved a meticulous legal procedure, with the Civil Forfeiture Office (CFO) taking possession of the Nanaimo, Kelowna, and East Vancouver properties, alleged to have been used by the Hells Angels to coordinate criminal activities.
Farnworth also highlighted the government’s continued efforts to combat illegal activities and seize unlawfully acquired assets.
“Government will continue to protect British Columbians and take action against organized crime by seizing illegally obtained assets — brick by brick, we will demolish organized crime and those that profit from it.
Farnworth added that the demolition today is “only the beginning.”
Following these properties being seized and taken over, the Hells Angels sought to get their properties back in a long and arduous court battle.
Initially, when the forfeiture case went to trial, the judge found that the Director of Civil Forfeiture could not prove that the properties would be used for illegal activities so he dismissed the forfeiture on the properties.
Following this, the Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the trial judge had made an error in his judgement.
The Supreme Court found that the trial judge erred specifically in his interpretation of the phrase, “property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity.”
In addition to this, it was found that he erred in several aspects of his fact-finding process related to the evidence found at the three clubhouses.
