The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has upheld a ruling in favour of the B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) in its long-running effort to collect penalties from a fraudster’s wife — finding that while the legal basis of the BCSC’s claim may have evolved, the facts have not changed and the regulator can pursue its collection action.
In 2015, the BCSC ordered a $15-million penalty and $21.7 million in disgorgement against Earle Pasquill, after finding he breached securities rules in connection with a fraud scheme. In 2018, the BCSC sought to enforce the disgorgement order against Pasquill’s wife, Vicki Pasquill, and her company, Vicker Holdings Ltd., on the basis they allegedly received proceeds of the fraud.
In 2021, a court struck most of the claims against them and refused to allow the BCSC to make certain amendments to its claim.
However, in that 2021 ruling, the court said the BCSC could seek certain relief under new provisions of securities law, adopted in 2020 to allow the regulator to pursue collections against relatives who received certain property from people engaged in fraud.
The regulator then sought to amend its claim to seek the forfeiture of “claimable property” under the new law. In 2023, the Supreme Court of B.C. allowed the regulator to amend its claim, seeking to collect the $21.7-million judgment against the wife and her company — the Vicker defendants — on the basis they “benefited from transfers from Earle Pasquill related to his fraudulent activities.”
The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the collection action should be dismissed based on the applicable limitation period.
On appeal, the Vicker defendants sought to have the BCSC’s claim dismissed on the basis the 2021 decision essentially ended the claim against them, and there was nothing left to amend. They also argued the BCSC’s revised claim, based on legislative changes that took effect in 2020, should be treated as a new action — which, they contended, should be dismissed for breaching the six-year limitation period.
The Court of Appeal sided with the BCSC, ruling the lower court did not err and the regulator’s claim is not a new action.
“The essential elements of the current claim were pleaded prior to 2020, even though its present legal basis was not. The current claim is not a fundamentally different claim,” the appeal court said.
“[W]hile the 2020 and 2023 proposed claims recast the facts and claims to fit under the 2020 enactments, the factual and legal essence of the claims remains the same: that the Vicker defendants benefited from transfers from Earle Pasquill, used those funds to acquire and maintain properties and are jointly and severally liable to pay those amounts to the commission to satisfy the $21.7-million judgment,” it added.
As the court found the commission is not making a fundamentally different claim, “no limitation issue is engaged,” it said.