3 total
Summary judgment granted to enforce a US restitution order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
The United States of America brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a restitution order of over $17 million made against the defendant in the US for securities fraud and money laundering.
The defendant argued the action was statute-barred, the order was not a 'fine' under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, and the enforcement violated his rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter.
The court found the restitution order qualified as a fine, the action was commenced within the five-year limitation period, and the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated as the Charter does not apply extraterritorially and the ministerial approval process does not adjudicate individual rights.
The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Stay of proceedings lifted to allow USSEC to pursue foreign judgment enforcement actions against bankrupts.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission brought a motion to lift the stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue actions enforcing foreign judgments against the bankrupt and the debtor.
The moving party argued the judgments arose from fraud or misappropriation and would survive discharge under s. 178(1).
The respondents opposed, citing a recent US Supreme Court decision and limitation period defences.
The court granted the motion, finding a fair issue to be tried regarding the limitation periods and the nature of the claims, but ordered that no enforcement steps be taken without further leave.
Filing an affidavit waived immunity from cross-examination.
In a motion arising from efforts to set aside a recognition and enforcement order of an international arbitral award against a foreign state, the court considered whether the foreign state's ambassador could be compelled to attend for cross-examination on his affidavit.
The moving party argued diplomatic or sovereign immunity barred compulsion, relying in part on Article 44 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as adopted into Canadian law.
The court held that while an ambassador is ordinarily under no obligation to give evidence, filing an affidavit in the proceeding waives that immunity for the purpose of cross-examination unless the affidavit is withdrawn.
Given the affidavit's central importance to notice and non-attendance issues on the Rule 38.11 motion, direct cross-examination was ordered.
