Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-10-04 Docket: C67055

Judges: Rouleau, Trotter and Harvison Young JJ.A.

Between

Caja Paraguay de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Personal de Itaipu Binacional

Plaintiff (Respondent)

- and -

Eduardo Garcia Obregon a.k.a. Eduardo Garcia a.k.a. Eddie Obregon, Claudia Patricia Garcia a.k.a. Patricia Garcia a.k.a. Claudia Patricia De Garcia a.k.a. Claudia Santisteban, Ligia Ponciano, Managed (Portfolio), Corp., Genesis (La), Corp. (Ontario Corporation Number 1653094), Genesis (La), Corp. (Alberta Corporate Access Number 2013145921), FC Int, Corp., First Canadian Int, Corp., Union Securities Limited, Scott Colwell, Marty Hibbs, Hibbs Enterprises Ltd., Columbus Capital Corporation, Antonio Duscio, Leanne Duscio, Leanne Duscio Carrying On Business As The Queen St. Conservatory, Catan Canada Inc., Vijay Paul, Greg Baker, Bradley F. Breen, Lou Maraj, 2138003 Ontario Inc., Mackie Research Capital Corporation, First Canadian Capital Markets Ltd., First Canadian Capital Corp., FC Financial Private Wealth Group Inc., Jason C. Monaco, Daniel Boase, Paolo Abate, Nikolaos Stylianos Tsimidis, Genesis Land Development Corporation, Limited Partnership Land Pool (2007), and GP LPLP 2007 Inc.

Defendants (Appellant)

Counsel

Antonio Duscio, in person

Fredrick Schumann, duty counsel for the appellant

John De Vellis, for the plaintiff (respondent)

Andrew Hotke, for the Crown

Heard

October 1, 2019

On Appeal

On appeal from the sentence imposed on March 5, 2019 by Justice S.F. Dunphy of the Superior Court of Justice.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] Duty counsel on behalf of the appellant argues that the one-year sentence for civil contempt was excessive. He argues that the transcript shows that the sentencing judge was inflamed by the appellant's failure to comply with his order freezing his assets and requiring disclosure. He also argues that the sentence was purely punitive with coercion playing virtually no role.

[2] Finally, he argues that the sentence is out of line with sentences imposed in other civil contempt cases.

[3] We disagree.

[4] Sentencing in civil contempt cases is highly fact specific and give rise to discretionary decisions. In this case, the appellant was given ample opportunity to purge his contempt and had not made substantial effort in this regard. In fact, during the contempt proceedings, he has attempted to deceive the court. The findings of the sentencing judge in that regard have not been appealed. Nor have the sentencing judge's findings that the contempt was brazen, deliberate and among the worst the judge has ever seen. The appellant was found to have perpetrated a $7 million civil fraud. Nothing has been recovered despite the lengthy delay given by the judge before imposing sentence. As noted by the plaintiff, the only disclosures made were of assets that had already been identified by the plaintiff and were either now out of reach or could not be located.

[5] While we agree that some of the sentencing judge's comments during the proceedings could be viewed as intemperate, we are not satisfied that they led him to impose an inappropriate sentence.

[6] Although the one-year sentence is long, we do not consider it excessive in the circumstances.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.