{"id":101854,"date":"2020-02-10T18:35:19","date_gmt":"2020-02-10T22:35:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/?p=101854"},"modified":"2020-02-10T18:35:19","modified_gmt":"2020-02-10T22:35:19","slug":"canadian-court-refuses-to-enforce-half-moon-bay-judgement-against-antigua-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/canadian-court-refuses-to-enforce-half-moon-bay-judgement-against-antigua-government\/","title":{"rendered":"Canadian Court Refuses To Enforce Half Moon Bay Judgement Against Antigua Government"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>

In a recent decision in\u00a0H.M.B. Holdings Limited v. Antigua and Barbuda<\/em>, 2020 ONCA 12<\/strong><\/i><\/a>, the Court of\u00a0Appeal<\/a>\u00a0for Ontario upheld Mr. Justice Paul\u00a0Perell<\/a>\u2019s decision to dismiss H.M.B. Holdings Ltd.\u2019s application to register its British Columbia\u00a0judgment<\/a>\u00a0in Ontario against the Caribbean nations of\u00a0Antigua<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Barbuda<\/a>. Specifically, the Court of Appeal held that the judge did not err in finding that\u00a0Antigua<\/a>\u00a0was not \u201ccarrying on business\u201d in British Columbia at the relevant time and therefore it did not have jurisdiction.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

This case originated with a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council judgment that ordered Antigua to compensate HMB for the expropriation of its property. HMB then brought a common law action to enforce the Privy Council Judgment in British Columbia where the BC Supreme Court granted judgment in HMB\u2019s action.<\/p>\n

HMB applied to register the BC Judgment in Ontario under the\u00a0Reciprocal<\/a>\u00a0Enforcement<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0Judgments<\/a>\u00a0Act<\/em>\u00a0and Ontario Superior Court Justice Perell dismissed HMB\u2019s application for two reasons: (1) Antigua and Barbuda was not \u201ccarrying on business\u201d in BC at the relevant time, a prerequisite to registration under section 3(b) of the\u00a0REJA<\/a>;\u00a0<\/em>and (2) section 3(g) of the\u00a0REJA\u00a0<\/em>barred registration where \u201cthe judgment debtor would have a good defence if an action were brought on the original judgment.\u201d<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

In evaluating whether or not the Antiguan government carried on a business in British Columbia, Justice Perell referred to Antigua\u2019s \u201cCitizenship by Investment\u201d program (the \u201cCIP<\/strong>\u201d) through which the government aimed to grow international investments in Antigua. At the time, there were four Authorized Representatives implementing the program in BC.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Specifically, Justice Perell held that the Antiguan government was not \u201ccarrying on a business\u201d in British Columbia for three reasons:<\/p>\n