Lee v Iyer, 2017 ABQB 420

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Lee v Iyer, 2017 ABQB 420 Date: 20170705 Docket: 1703 01139 Registry: Edmonton Between: Cecilia Lee and Billy Ngu Respondents/Plaintiffs - and - Vimal Chandra Iyer Applicant/Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice R. Khullar _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. Iyer, was found guilty of 33 counts of fraud related to real estate investments by a jury in 2016 and the trial judge sentenced Mr.

Iyer to seven years imprisonment and restitution orders to the victims of the fraud in the amount of over $2,000,000 to approximately 40 different victims ( R v Iyer , 2016 ABQB 680 ). The Plaintiffs, Cecilia Lee and Billy Ngu were to receive $65,000 by way of this restitution order and they filed a Writ of Enforcement to protect their interest. [ 2 ] Mr. Iyer comes to Court seeking an order to strike the Writ of Enforcement and to discharge the registration of that Writ of Enforcement from two different properties relying on s. 191 of the Land Titles Act. II. Background [ 3 ] Mr.

Iyer has appealed his conviction and sentencing and on December 20, 2016, was granted judicial interim release by a single Justice of the Court of Appeal.

[ 4 ] On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs, Cecilia Lee and Billy Ngu, had a Writ of Enforcement issued against Mr. Iyer for the amount of $65,000. On January 25, 2017 they registered the Writ of Enforcement on two different properties for which they claimed Mr. Iyer was the registered owner. [ 5 ] In a decision released June 2, 2017, Greckol, JA ( R v Iyer , 2017 ABCA 168 ) dealt with some follow-up issues raised by Mr. Iyer with respect to his bail and also a stay pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that s 689(1) of the Criminal Code automatically suspends the operation of an order for restitution, pending appeal. In addition, and out of an abundance of caution, Greckol, JA granted a stay pursuant to s 683(5) of the Criminal Code which gives a justice of the Appeal Court discretion to grant a stay of an order for restitution. [ 6 ] Mr.

Iyer argues that the effect of the stay or suspension of the order of restitution means that the Writ of Enforcement should never have been filed on January 17, 2017 and that the registration of the Writ of Enforcement at Land Titles on January 25, 2017 should not have happened and therefore asks this Court to discharge them. III. Jurisdiction of this Court [ 7 ] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that there is a stay of the order for restitution. It seems that this issue really relates to an

interpretation of what is meant by the stay under the Criminal Code , either s 689(1) or s 683 (5). Any further clarification of what the stay means, should properly return to the Court of Appeal. Rule 14.37 of the Alberta Rules of Court provides that a single judge of the Court of Appeal “may hear and decide any application incidental to an appeal”. The question is clearly one “incidental to an appeal” – what is the effect of the stay pending appeal? (see also KPMG Inc v Hayes unreported January 2, 2001, Ontario Superior Court of Justice at para 10). IV. Conclusion [ 8 ] Therefore, Mr.

Iyer’s application is dismissed as this Court has no jurisdiction in this matter. Heard on the 19 th day of June, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of July, 2017. R. Khullar J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Billy Ngu Self-Represented for the Plaintiffs Vimal Iyer Self-Represented for the Defendant