The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Beals v.
Saldanha that the principles of comity must be applied when
considering and enforcing judgments of other courts. Ontario courts
will generally recognize and enforce American judgments against
Canadian parties with assets in Ontario where a final judgment for
a defined sum of money is awarded by a court of competent
Enforcement of US judgments is pursued by commencing an
application (generally a summary procedure relying on a "paper
record") or by starting an action (and often seeking summary
judgment within the action). A party seeking to enforce a US
judgment must satisfy the court that there is a "real and
substantial connection" between the foreign jurisdiction and
the subject matter giving rise to the claim.
The three main defences to the enforcement of foreign judgments
are fraud, denial of natural justice and public policy concerns.
The Court of Appeal recently refused to add a fourth defence:
"a meaningful opportunity to be heard."
A foreign judgment obtained by fraud may not be enforced by a
Canadian court. The defence is a narrow one, however, in order to
avoid relitigation of the merits of the underlying action. The
defence may be raised with respect to jurisdiction, as grounds for
impeaching the foreign judgment. In the case of intrinsic fraud, or
fraud going to the merits of the case, the defence can only be
successfully raising in limited circumstance, such as where
material facts arose that were not previously discoverable through
A foreign judgment may also be unenforceable if it resulted from
proceedings that were contrary to notions of fairness and
fundamental justice. These might include the right to be given
adequate notice of the claim or the right to be granted an
opportunity to defend. The denial of natural justice defence has
been raised in international disputes involving accusations of
corruption. However, Canadian courts have not been willing to
endorse this defence, particularly where the parties attorned to
the foreign jurisdiction.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).