Ontario court blocks attempt by Flight PS752 families to seize Iranian assets | 24CA News

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dominated that the households of Flight PS752 victims can’t seize sure properties or financial institution accounts on Canadian soil as a result of the federal authorities considers these property the property of the Islamic Republic of Iran protected underneath worldwide legislation.

Last yr, the provincial courtroom awarded $107 million, plus curiosity, to the households of 5 individuals who died when Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp shot down the industrial aircraft three years in the past, killing all 176 individuals aboard, together with 85 Canadians and everlasting residents.

Ever since, attorneys representing the households have been trying to seize Iranian property in Canada for compensation. The attorneys argued that Iran’s rights to diplomatic immunity ended a decade in the past when Canada expelled Iranian diplomats from the nation.

The households have been searching for the courtroom’s permission to seize three properties in Ottawa and withdraw cash from financial institution accounts on the Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank maintained by Iran.

The Canadian authorities issued a certificates throughout a courtroom continuing in March arguing that underneath worldwide legislation, the courtroom does not have the facility to permit the households to seize the Iranian property. The certificates stated Iran continues to “enjoy the privileges and immunities,” in line with the ruling.

In a call issued Tuesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Grant Dow sided with the federal authorities and dismissed the households’ movement.

While the decide agreed with Global Affairs Canada’s place, he additionally identified a disconnect within the authorities’s place.

The ruling famous that Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 2012 “as a result of its involvement with acts of terrorism.” The ruling additionally identified the federal authorities launched the Justice for Victims of Terrorism act, “which granted victims some ability to commence legal action against terrorist groups.”

“While this decision may be inconsistent with the purpose of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act … it would appear to lie with the [federal government] to explain and/or remedy such inconsistencies,” Dow wrote.

William Pellerin, a lawyer specializing in sanctions, reviewed the ruling and stated the federal government went again to a foundational precept of worldwide legislation.

While Canada has expelled diplomats from the nation, it nonetheless acknowledges the existence of Iran, Pellerin stated. United Nations agreements and worldwide conventions assure international locations’ sovereignty and authority over their territory, he stated.

More virtually, Pellerin stated, the federal government might have been attempting to keep away from a precedent that would later put Canadian property overseas in jeopardy.

“Canada is present in a number of countries internationally and may not want to set a dangerous precedent, where its assets or assets of its citizens are under threat,” stated Pellerin, who additionally labored previously as a lawyer at Global Affairs Canada.

Families deserve a proof: lawyer

Mark Arnold, one of many attorneys representing the victims’ households, issued a press release calling the choice “highly unusual.”

“Surviving family victims are entitled to an explanation from the Government of Canada as to why it continues to maintain that the Iranian property is diplomatic property when there have been no diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran since September 2012,” Arnold wrote.

24CA News requested a response Tuesday evening from the federal government.

Since the autumn, Canada has imposed sanctions on 84 people and 24 entities in Iran — an motion which Global Affairs Canada stated successfully freezes any property they might have in Canada.

Pellerin stated in mild of the federal government taking motion by way of focused sanctions, Global Affairs would have been relinquishing its management if it hadn’t taken the place it did in courtroom.