Ontario Court Awards $ 107 Million to Families for Downing Flight 752 in Iran | The Canadian News

An Ontario court awarded more than $ 107 million to the families of six victims of the downing of an airliner by the Iranian military two years ago.

The decision made public today follows a May ruling that the missile strikes amounted to an intentional act of terrorism, paving the way for relatives of the dead to seek compensation from Iran.

In the 2021 decision, Ontario Superior Court Judge Edward Belobaba found on balance of probabilities that the missiles that shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 on January 8, 2020 were deliberately fired at a time when there was no armed conflict in the area. .

As a result, it found that it constituted an act of terrorism that would invalidate Iran’s immunity from civil litigation.

While the State Immunity Act protects foreign states from legal claims, the Terrorism Victims Justice Act provides an exception in cases where losses are caused by terrorist activities.

More than 100 of the 176 people who died in the plane crash had ties to Canada, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents.

“This court understands well that damages are a poor substitute for the lives that were lost,” Belobaba said in the latest ruling, dated December 31. “But monetary compensation is the only remedy that a civil court can provide.”

3:18Plane crash in Iran: report on flight down highlights ‘recklessness, disregard for human life’

Belobaba awarded $ 7 million in compensatory damages and $ 100 million in punitive damages, plus interest, to family members who went to court.

It was not immediately clear how the money from Iran could be raised.

The relatives and their attorneys, Mark Arnold and Jonah Arnold, plan to discuss the court decision at a press conference on Tuesday.

A statement from attorneys Monday called the damages decision “unprecedented in Canadian law.”

In the decision, Belobaba said it was satisfied that the awards are “fair and appropriate and in accordance with applicable law.” But he welcomed the possibility of an appellate review, if only to affirm the appropriate framework for the analysis of the case.