 |
Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia bombed in 1996 |
TORONTO - According to Canada's
National Post, the Iranian government lost a key court battle Thursday
when an Ontario judge ordered the Islamic republic’s non-diplomatic
assets in Canada to be handed over to victims of terrorist groups
sponsored by Tehran.
The long-awaited ruling by the Ontario Superior Court dismissed every argument Iran’s lawyers had made at a trial held in Toronto in January, leaving Tehran financial responsible for the actions of the terrorists it has backed.
“Terrorism is one of the world’s greatest threats,” Justice Glenn Hainey wrote. “The broad issue before the court is whether Iran is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts for its support of terrorism.”
Iran’s diplomatic buildings in Ottawa remain unaffected, but several non-diplomatic properties and the contents of a list of bank accounts were awarded to the victims of the Iranian-supported terror groups including Hezbollah.
AFP reported, The Canadian lawsuits were brought under a relatively new law passed in 2012 that allows victims and their families to collect damages from state sponsors of terrorism.
National Post reported that, the $13-million case was the first challenge of the Justice for Victims of Terror Act.
The 2012 law allows victims to collect damages from state sponsors of terror groups. Canada has designated Iran and Syria state sponsors of terrorism.
“The JVTA continues to do its job in holding Iran — the world’s most egregious state sponsor of terror — accountable for its terrorist crimes,” said Danny Eisen of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, which represents victims and lobbied for the law. “As Canada seeks to re-engage Iran it is critical that Iran continue to be held to account in Canadian courts for its terrorism and human rights abuses.”
Until the JVTA came into effect four years ago, foreign governments enjoyed state immunity from civil courts. But the law stripped that immunity from Iran and Syria.
Eventually victims of eight terrorist attacks joined in, including those harmed by Iran’s Lebanese proxy force, Hezbollah.
The five proceedings in Ontario involved the enforcement of a dozen U.S. court judgments against Iran as well as the Ministry of Information and Security and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iran initially ignored the cases. Only after judgment orders had been issued, did it hire a Toronto law firm, which argued Tehran had not been properly served with the court papers, the cases were filed too late and the dollar amounts sought by the victims were “offensive.”
In his ruling, Justice Hainey found Iran’s arguments were without merit and declined to set aside the judgments. He dismissed its argument legal papers had been served in English, rather than in a Persian language.
He gave no weight to Iran’s argument it had assumed the Canadian government would protect the regime’s assets, and said Iran had failed to explain why it had not mounted a legal defence until the judgment orders had been issued.
“The failure to provide any reasonable explanation for Iran’s failure to defend these motions suggests to me that the defendants were attempting to gain a procedural advantage and were ‘gaming the system,’ ” he wrote.
Source: News Agencies, 11 June 2016
The long-awaited ruling by the Ontario Superior Court dismissed every argument Iran’s lawyers had made at a trial held in Toronto in January, leaving Tehran financial responsible for the actions of the terrorists it has backed.
“Terrorism is one of the world’s greatest threats,” Justice Glenn Hainey wrote. “The broad issue before the court is whether Iran is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts for its support of terrorism.”
Iran’s diplomatic buildings in Ottawa remain unaffected, but several non-diplomatic properties and the contents of a list of bank accounts were awarded to the victims of the Iranian-supported terror groups including Hezbollah.
AFP reported, The Canadian lawsuits were brought under a relatively new law passed in 2012 that allows victims and their families to collect damages from state sponsors of terrorism.
National Post reported that, the $13-million case was the first challenge of the Justice for Victims of Terror Act.
The 2012 law allows victims to collect damages from state sponsors of terror groups. Canada has designated Iran and Syria state sponsors of terrorism.
“The JVTA continues to do its job in holding Iran — the world’s most egregious state sponsor of terror — accountable for its terrorist crimes,” said Danny Eisen of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, which represents victims and lobbied for the law. “As Canada seeks to re-engage Iran it is critical that Iran continue to be held to account in Canadian courts for its terrorism and human rights abuses.”
Until the JVTA came into effect four years ago, foreign governments enjoyed state immunity from civil courts. But the law stripped that immunity from Iran and Syria.
Eventually victims of eight terrorist attacks joined in, including those harmed by Iran’s Lebanese proxy force, Hezbollah.
The five proceedings in Ontario involved the enforcement of a dozen U.S. court judgments against Iran as well as the Ministry of Information and Security and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iran initially ignored the cases. Only after judgment orders had been issued, did it hire a Toronto law firm, which argued Tehran had not been properly served with the court papers, the cases were filed too late and the dollar amounts sought by the victims were “offensive.”
In his ruling, Justice Hainey found Iran’s arguments were without merit and declined to set aside the judgments. He dismissed its argument legal papers had been served in English, rather than in a Persian language.
He gave no weight to Iran’s argument it had assumed the Canadian government would protect the regime’s assets, and said Iran had failed to explain why it had not mounted a legal defence until the judgment orders had been issued.
“The failure to provide any reasonable explanation for Iran’s failure to defend these motions suggests to me that the defendants were attempting to gain a procedural advantage and were ‘gaming the system,’ ” he wrote.
Source: News Agencies, 11 June 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment