Fair enough. Of course this isn't the only piece of legislation that exists in the Canadian context, both federally and provincially, that allows for the seizure of any personal property in order to prevent the continuation of the offence, or if the crown or the investigation believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it would afford evidence to the matter before the courts.
It's not subverting the “innocent until proven guilty” angle to seize and retain any level of property to either present it as evidence, or, in the first place, to prevent the continuation of the offence. But an element still remains that allows an application before the courts to have property returned, correct?
In such a case, if that element does exist as a mechanism of protection, the minister would effectively be operating in bad faith on a court decision if he then established a cost-prohibitive structure, or simply refused to find a satisfactory monetary amount. Wouldn't you agree with that?