Skip to main content
Last verified: June 2026 · Source: justice.gc.ca← Back to Law Explorer
IRPRPART 16 Seizure
r.254

Application for return — person from whom seized

🍁 In Simple Terms

You have 60 days from that notice to ask in writing for your property back, and what you must prove depends on why it was taken. If it was seized as fraudulently obtained, show you were entitled to hold it then and still are. If it was seized as fraudulently used, show you took no part in that use. If it was held to prevent misuse, explain in writing why holding it is no longer necessary.

Affects: Foreign nationals and permanent residents in Canada
Legal Text: IRPR Regulation 254

(1)If a thing was seized on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used, or that the seizure was necessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use, the person from whom it was seized may apply for its return in writing within 60 days after the day on which the notification referred to in subsection 253(1) was provided.

Return — improperly or fraudulently obtained

(2)If the application is in respect of a thing seized on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained, in order to have the thing returned, the applicant shall demonstrate that they were entitled to have that thing in their possession at the time of the seizure and that they are still entitled to it.

Return — improperly or fraudulently used

(3)If the application is in respect of a thing seized on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly used, in order to have it returned, the applicant shall demonstrate that they did not participate in the fraudulent or improper use of the thing, that at the time of the seizure they were entitled to have that thing in their possession and that they are still entitled to it.

Return — prevention of improper or fraudulent use

(4)If the application is in respect of a thing seized on the ground that the seizure was necessary to prevent the thing’s fraudulent or improper use, the thing shall be returned to the applicant if they make written submissions explaining why it is no longer necessary to hold the thing in order to prevent its fraudulent or improper use, why at the time of the seizure they were entitled to have that thing in their possession and why they are still entitled to it.

Cross-References
In Practice
Official Source: Justice Canada: IRPR r. 254 (authoritative, may differ from this display)
Explore the Law
Browse all IRPA sections and IRPR regulations with plain-language summaries.
Explore the Law