In dismissing an appeal from a order enforcing a United States judgment, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that it was the character of the foreign judgment that governed whether it was enforceable, not the way in which the parties responded to it.
On August 18, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“US Court”) rendered a judgment against William Peever and Phillip Curtis. The judgment was for injunctive relief and the disgorgement of profits derived from illegal price manipulation of stock of American corporations. The suit was advanced by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Peever and Curtis consented to the injunction, admitted liability and did not contest the quantum of the judgment. They were ordered by the US Court to pay the sum of $4,506,535.66 into court.
The SEC brought an action in British Columbia to ask the court of that province to recognize and enforce the judgment. Peever and Curtis resisted the enforcement proceedings on the basis that the judgment was penal or public in nature, a recognized exception to the enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada. Notwithstanding such argument, a BC trial judge held that the judgment of the US Court should be recognized and enforced. Peever and Curtis appealed from that decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed