Canada: Defenses To The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments: Post-Pro Swing: A Fourth Defense?

Last Updated: November 26 2011
Article by Jon-David Giacomelli

Background:

In Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye1, Justice La Forest made a convincing case for replacing the territoriality-based test for the recognition of foreign judgments to a substantial connection test, which he argued was more consistent with our modern global economy.2 The "real and substantial connection" test adopted in Morguard applied to money judgments between Canadian provinces. Subsequent judgments before the Supreme Court of Canada held that the real and substantial connection test should be extended to the enforcement of money judgments from truly foreign courts (i.e. foreign countries)3 and further that this same criterion should be employed to address the recognition and enforcement of non-money judgments issued by foreign courts.4

Following Morguard, a foreign litigant is only required to show:

  1. That the foreign judgment was "issued by a court acting through fair process and with properly retrained jurisdiction,"5
  2. There exists a "real and substantial connection" between:

    - the issue in the action and the location where the action is commenced;
    - the damages suffered and the jurisdiction; and
    - the defendant and the originating forum;6 and
  3. The defendant fails to raise a recognized defence.7

The Supreme Court's modern approach has increasingly simplified the enforcement procedure for foreign litigants in Canada. So long as principles of natural justice are satisfied in the originating court's decision, the enforcing Canadian court is not interested in the substantive or procedural law of the foreign jurisdiction in which the judgment sought to be enforced was rendered.8 This means once jurisdiction simpliciter is established by a domestic Canadian court, using the "real and substantial connection" test, the issues to be raised will be limited to the application and scope of the defences available to a domestic defendant seeking to have a Canadian court refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment.9

Both the majority and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Beals affirmed that once the foreign court's jurisdiction is recognized, there are only three limited defences to an action for enforcement in Canada; namely:

  1. Fraud,
  2. Denial of Natural Justice, and
  3. Public Policy.

The majority did not liberalize any of the existing common law defences to recognition and enforcement, determining that they applied equally to truly foreign judgments as to interprovincial judgments.

The Majority decision in Beals, delivered by Major J., held that the extension of the Morguard principles to foreign judgments and the resulting change in the jurisdiction test, did not require a reconsideration of the traditional common law defences to recognition and enforcement of judgments. Major J. stated:10

Unusual situations may arise that might require the creation of a new defence to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. However, the facts of this case do not justify speculating on that possibility. Should the evolution of private international law require the creation of a new defence, the courts will need to ensure that any new defences continue to be narrow in scope, address specific facts and raise issues not covered by the existing defences.

Note that in contrast to this reservation to broaden the scope of existing defences, Binnie J. in his dissent, argued that while the "real and substantial connection" test provides an appropriate conceptual basis for the enforcement of final judgments obtained in foreign jurisdictions11, given the "constitutional flavour of the Morguard analysis," a flexible approach to the availability of defenses to enforcement of foreign judgments should be adopted:12

While I accept that the Morguard test (real and substantial connection) provides a framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, it would be prudent at this stage not to be overly rigid in staking out a position on available defenses beyond what the facts of this case require. Both Major J. and LeBel J. acknowledge (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) that a greater measure of flexibility may be called for judgments as distinguished from interprovincial judgments.

The Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. case presented the SCC with the opportunity to consider whether the common law should be extended to permit the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments (and the circumstances under which they would be enforceable) in 2006. This seemed to be an occasion where changes were made to private international law such that the SCC would be compelled to consider the possibility of a new defence alluded to by the majority in Beals.

Recognition and Enforcement of Non-Money Judgments: Evolution Enough?

In Pro Swing, the SCC in a split-decision, unanimously held that modern day commercial transactions have prompted the need for a "new rule" accompanied by a "judicial discretion enabling the domestic court to consider relevant factors so as to ensure that the orders do not disturb the structure and integrity of the Canadian legal system."13

The issues inherent in the case before the Court relating to comity begged two questions:

  1. Whether Canadian courts can recognize and enforce foreign non-monetary judgments; and,
  2. If so, when is it appropriate to recognize and enforce such judgments?

Writing for the majority, Deschamps J. agreed that "the time is ripe" to revise Canada's traditional conflicts of laws rules to remove the requirement that foreign (outside of Canada)14 judgments must be for a fixed and ascertained sum of money to be recognized and enforced by our courts. In her decision, Deschamps J. recognizes that the nature of equitable judgments require that this "new rule" should be accompanied by a judicial discretion not afforded under the traditional rule. 15

The majority determined that the facts of the case at bar did not warrant application of this new rule. In contrast to the minority, the majority held that the contempt and injunction orders at issue in the case at bar were not an example of enforceable non-monetary judgment.

So while the Court determined that non-monetary foreign judgments can, in principle, be enforced in Canada; the SCC only provided general guidelines regarding the substance and application of such a principle to assist lower courts in drawing appropriate distinctions in future cases.16 Foreign non-monetary judgments can now be enforced in Canada provided that:

  • The terms are clear and certain;
  • The territorial scope is limited and well defined;
  • The judgment is final in the original jurisdiction;
  • The judgment is not penal or quasi-criminal;
  • The judgment is of a nature that the principle of comity requires the domestic court to enforce it.
  • The enforcement of the judgment would not unreasonably burden the courts; and,
  • Discretionary equitable considerations such as delay or estoppel should not bar enforcement.

Pro Swing concerned a foreign contempt order, which the Court concluded was not enforceable in Canada because it was quasi-criminal in nature.

The majority acknowledged that the equitable nature of injunctions and other non-monetary judgments could require Canadian courts to revisit the meaning of finality requirement and recognize new defenses17. However, in her decision, Deschamps J. refused to elaborate on this point as well determining again that the facts of the present case did not merit the Courts consideration. Deschamps J. refused to expand on Major J.'s dictum in Beals18 that the evolution of private international law may require the creation of new defenses (i.e., defenses of public policy, natural justice and fraud), and reiterates the Court's acknowledgment that the list of available defenses to the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments was not closed. Thus, for the purposes of the Pro Swing decision, as in Beals, the SCC felt that the current, existing defenses available at common law would suffice.

Post-Pro Swing: A Fourth Defense?

While Pro Swing reversed a long-standing common law principle with respect to non-monetary judgments, the enforcement of such judgments remained only a theoretical possibility until last year. In 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal in United States of America v. Yemec19provided the first example of a Canadian court recognizing and enforcing a U.S. injunction.

This case concerned a cross-border telemarketing business that sold Canadian lottery tickets to residents of the United States. In September 2002, the United States Federal Trade Commission commenced proceedings against the Yemec defendants in an Illinois District Court, which resulted in a permanent injunction against the Canadian defendants and a judgment of US $19 million.

In 2005, the US amended its Ontario claim to seek enforcement of the Illinois judgment on a summary basis. The motion judge refused to grant summary judgment based on his finding that the Yemec defendants had raised a genuine issue for trial capable in law of constituting a defense to the enforcement of the Illinois judgment. Leave to appeal was granted and the sole issue upon which leave was sought was the determination of a possible new defense. The motions judge referred to this new defense as "the loss of a meaningful opportunity to be heard."

The new defense was based on the Yemec defendants' submission that the plaintiffs had, through the Illinois injunction, tied up their assets to such an extent that they were unable to defend the foreign proceeding in both Canada and the US. The defendants also argued that they lacked access to seized business documents and computers, which prevented them from properly instructing counsel.

The Court considered the following issues:

  1. Whether there is a fourth defense to enforcement of a foreign judgment based on the "loss of a meaningful opportunity to be heard";
  2. Whether a foreign equitable remedy (in this instance, an injunction) is enforceable by courts in Ontario

Upon consideration of the Yemec defendants' submission, the Court found that this fourth defense was indistinguishable from the natural justice defense recognized in Beals since the defendants were essentially arguing that they could have mounted a better defense if they had more money. Since the defendants had not asserted this defense in the Illinois litigation, a trial on this issue would ultimately require the Ontario court to completely re-litigate the Illinois action, an outcome that was recognized in Beals20 (at para. 44) to be undesirable and inconsistent with comity between nations.

Conclusion

Upon consideration of the appeal, the Ontario court ruled that there was no new defense to US judgment enforcement in Canada. This means that when a Canadian defendant wishes to prevent the enforcement of a foreign equitable remedy - in addition to challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction for want of due process or a real and substantial connection to the subject matter of the action - there currently do not exist any legally valid defenses outside of the ones recognized in Beals, namely, fraud, denial of natural justice and public policy. Future defenses brought before the courts in Canada, as indicated by the decision in Yemec, will have to be fundamentally different from those recognized in Beals, in order to be recognized.

In the meantime, it seems that the courts will continue to apply the Pro Swing criteria to determine the enforceability of foreign equitable orders in precise circumstances and legal conditions as they arise on a case by case basis21.

United States of America v. Yemec is significant in that it represents the courts willingness to consider and articulate a new defense with regard to foreign non-monetary judgments; it also demonstrates that businesses operating in foreign jurisdictions must now actively address foreign non-monetary claims.

Footnotes

1. Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 [Morguard].

2. Morguard, at 1098

3. Beals v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 234 D.L.R. (4th) 1. [Beals]

4. Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612.

5. Morguard at 1103.

6. Beals at 489.

7. See Morguard at 1103-10.

8. Beals v. Saldanha [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416 at para. 37; Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612 at para. 12.

9. Id. at para. 17.

10. Id. para. 42.

11. Id. at para 85.

12. Id. at para 86.

13. Supra., at para. 15

14. Uniforet Pate Port-Cartier Inc. v. Zerotech Technologies Inc., 1998 CANLII 3817 BCSC), para. 24

15. See Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye and Beals v. Saldanha, discussed above.

16. Id., at para 31.

17. Id. at para 93

18. Id.., at para. 42.

19. United States of America v. Yemec [2010], ONCA 41

20. Beals at para. 44.

21. See Monteiro v. Toronto Dominion Bank [2008], 89 O.R. (3d) 565.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions