The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday refused Peter Nygard’s application for leave to appeal a contempt conviction for breaching an injunction that banned him from publishing stolen emails from environmental group Save The Bays.

In November 2019, a judge sentenced the Canadian fashion mogul to 90 days in prison and fined him $150,000 - plus $5,000 a day if he failed to comply with the court’s judgement. That means Nygard’s attempts to avoid paying have potentially cost him an extra $2,225,000 under the terms of the judgement.

Nygard was found to be in contempt of an order restricting him from interacting with the environmental advocacy group’s emails, which he was accused of obtaining through unlawful means.

Last year, Nygard appealed his contempt conviction on the grounds the fine and sentence handed down to him was too harsh. Recently, he sought to attain an extension of time within which to appeal the contempt order.

However, yesterday Justices Jon Isaacs, Maureen Crane-Scott and Roy Jones refused the appellant’s application for leave to appeal out of time, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence handed down to Nygard with costs to the respondents.

According to a judgement posted on the Crown’s website, in February 2019, Justice Keith Thompson granted an order prohibiting the use of a number of documents that were alleged to have been improperly obtained by Nygard.

However, in “apparent disobedience” to the injunction, the appellant sought to use the documents in an action in New York. The respondents: The Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay, Fred Smith, QC, and Callenders and Co law firm, subsequently sought and were granted leave to begin committal proceedings against the appellant for contempt.

“Madam Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville heard the application and found the appellant to be in contempt on October 11, 2019,” the court documents said.

“On November 15, 2019, the judge made a number of orders, including the committal of the appellant for 90 days and a fine of $150,000. The appellant attempted unsuccessfully, inter alia, to have the contempt order set aside. He now appeals to the court for relief from its effects.”

Nygard appealed his conviction on the grounds the learned judge erred when she ruled he violated the injunction order. He further argued the judge was wrong to impose a penalty on him for failing to attend court without first calling on him to show the reason he should not be cited for contempt, or giving him a chance to defend himself against the claim.

In their ruling, the panel said they found no reason to interfere with the “discretion exercised” by the judge when she ruled that Nygard had committed a contempt of court. They also said they believed the sentence imposed on the appellant was “commensurate with the contempt proved”.

“Where the action comprising the contempt is clear and unexplained, the court is entitled to move directly to impose such punishment on the contemnor as the contempt merits,” they noted.

“In the premises, there was no need for the judge to wait before proceeding to impose sentence on the appellant for his failure to appear. The appellant had been prohibited from using the correspondence by the Thompson injunction and he could not escape its effect, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bahamian courts when he entered an unconditional appearance to the proceedings, by publishing the impugned documents outside the jurisdiction.”

In their judgment they concluded: “Leave to appeal out of time is refused; the appeal is dismissed; the conviction and sentence are affirmed with costs to the respondents; such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed, sufficient for two counsel.”