Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Hells Angels lose bid to derail clubhouse forfeiture

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club and seven members have failed to have the province’s attempt to seize three of their clubhouses thrown out of court. In a 15,000-word ruling in advance of his decision in the civil forfeiture case, B.C.
0409-hells-angels008257.jpg
Members of the Hells Angels arrive at the Nanaimo Hells Angels' clubhouse in Nanaimo, B.C., July, 20, 2018.

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club and seven members have failed to have the province’s attempt to seize three of their clubhouses thrown out of court.

In a 15,000-word ruling in advance of his decision in the civil forfeiture case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barry Davies rejected the Angels’ arguments that their rights had been violated in the proceedings to grab their properties in Nanaimo, the East End of Vancouver and Kelowna.

The fulcrum of the petition was the legality of the RCMP’s disclosure to the Civil Forfeiture Office of information gleaned from “Project Halo,” “Project E-Pandora” and “Project E-Predicate” — investigations involving the motorcycle enthusiasts.

Davies said in the decision published Monday that there was no support for the club’s claims.

The Director of Civil Forfeiture seized the Nanaimo Hells Angels clubhouse in November 2007 and commenced proceedings in November 2012 against the East End and Kelowna clubhouses. The two proceedings were joined for trial in August 2015 based upon the allegation that each clubhouse was an “instrument of unlawful activity” because “in future, they were likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that may result in the acquisition of an interest in property and/or cause serious bodily harm to persons.”

The Angels filed counterclaims that asserted the “instruments of unlawful activity” provisions of the Civil Forfeiture Act were unconstitutional.

The trial of the forfeiture proceedings began on April 23, 2018.

In October 2018, the Angels filed the petition under the Judicial Review Procedures Act seeking to quash the forfeiture litigation and obtain orders prohibiting the director from continuing the proceedings.

After hearing the petition in early April, Davies reserved judgment; he completed the trial of the forfeiture proceedings on April 30. His decisions on the forfeiture applications as well as on the Angels’ counterclaim are pending.