Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20221118 DOCKET: M53879 (C70951) Pardu, Miller and Copeland JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Caja Paraguaya De Jubilaciones Y Pensiones Del Personal De Itaipu Binacional Plaintiff (Respondent/Responding Party)

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/Moving Party)

Antonio Duscio, acting in person John De Vellis and Jacqueline L. King, for the responding party

Heard: November 8, 2022

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Duscio moves for a review of the October 19, 2022 decision of a single judge of this court dismissing his motion for release pending the hearing of his appeal from a sentence for contempt, imposed on April 28, 2022. There is no longer any issue about the findings of contempt. This court dismissed an appeal from those findings; the only issue is the length of the sentence. Mr. Duscio is a repeat offender. An earlier appeal from a 12-month sentence for contempt was dismissed by this court.

[2] The sentence now appealed from was for 16 months, without the possibility of parole. It was imposed for further acts of contempt which in substance related to concealment of assets to avoid execution against them on a judgment for fraud.

[3] The motion judge noted the hitherto unresolved issue of whether these motions for release should be governed by the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, or by way of application for a stay in the civil context. He concluded that the civil process was more appropriate but weighed the factors favoring release and those favoring continued detention under both statutory regimes. Ultimately, he concluded that the need for enforceability outweighed the interests of reviewability in this case.

[4] We do not disagree. The motion judge’s discretionary weighing of these factors is owed deference. For the purposes of this motion for release pending appeal we need not decide whether the criminal or the civil process governs. Neither party argued that issue before us on the motion.

[5] We see no basis to intervene and the motion is dismissed.

"G. Pardu J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”