Canada: Enforcement Of Foreign Non-Monetary Judgments

Last Updated: June 6 2007

Article by Barry Leon and Sarah Huggins

Originally published in IBA Legal Practice Division Litigation Committee Newsletter, May 2007.

In late 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that foreign non-monetary judgments should be recognised and enforced by all Canadian courts in appropriate circumstances.

Under the traditional common law rule, only final monetary judgments would be recognised and enforced. However, in Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc, the Supreme Court held that ‘the time is ripe to revise’ this traditional rule.1

The decision is significant in this era of global commerce (including e-commerce) and increasing international interaction and cross-border disputes. It permits Canadian courts to recognise and enforce various types of equitable remedies granted elsewhere and should reduce the need for duplicative proceedings in several jurisdictions.

Canadian Law Before Pro Swing

Prior to the decision in Pro Swing, foreign nonmonetary judgments were not recognised or enforced in Canada’s common law jurisdictions. Canada is a federal state with 12 common law jurisdictions (nine provinces and three territories) and one civil law jurisdiction (Quebec). Rules of private international law, including those governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, are within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

The Civil Code of Quebec, which contains the rules applicable to Quebec courts’ recognition and enforcement of non-Quebec judgments,2 does not distinguish between monetary and non-monetary judgments. Article 3155 of the Code provides that a Quebec court will recognise and declare enforceable ‘any decision rendered outside Quebec’, subject to the usual defences such as public policy and finality.

In the common law provinces and territories, however, foreign judgments were recognised and enforced only if they were for a definite sum of money. This requirement meant that the enforcing court would not need to consider the merits of the foreign judgment, nor interpret foreign law; it could simply focus on the obligation created on the face of the judgment itself.

This traditional common law rule is part of the rigid set of recognition and enforcement rules that was developed in 19th-century England. Canadian courts have been reappraising these rules in the face of the ‘acceleration, intensification, and nature of crossborder social and economic activity’.3 Notable are the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in 1990 in Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye4 and in 2003 in Beals v Saldanha.5

In 1990, in Morguard, the Supreme Court liberalised the law governing the recognition and enforcement of interprovincial judgments within Canada. Each of the 13 Canadian jurisdictions administers its own superior court system and, historically, the superior court judgments of one province or territory were treated as ‘foreign’ judgments by the superior courts of all other provinces and territories. Prior to Morguard, recognition and enforcement of these ‘foreign’ judgments followed the old English rule generally requiring that the defendant be present at the time of the action in the jurisdiction where the judgment was given. The US concept of giving to state judgments ‘full faith and credit’ in other states did not exist interprovincially in Canada. The Morguard decision changed that. The Court held that ‘the courts in one province should give full faith and credit … to the judgments given by a court in another province or a territory, so long as that court has properly, or appropriately, exercised jurisdiction in the action’.6 It held that jurisdiction is exercised appropriately when there is a ‘real and substantial connection’ between the action and the ‘foreign’ court.7

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada in Beals extended the ‘real and substantial connection’ test to the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts outside Canada.

At issue in Beals was the enforcement of a C$260,000 default judgment of a Florida court – what the dissenting judge in Beals termed a ‘Kafka-esque judgment’8 – against Ontario defendants. By the time the judgment came before the Canadian courts for enforcement, it had ballooned to over C$800,000. The Supreme Court held that the judgment should be enforced against the Canadian defendants. In the interest of international comity and having regard to the prevalence of crossborder transactions and movement, the Court enunciated a new Canadian approach to the enforcement of foreign judgments: a judgment of a foreign court will be enforced in Canada where there is a real and substantial connection between the foreign court and the cause of action.9

The principled and arguably modernised approach to recognition and enforcement taken in Morguard and Beals effectively invited lower courts in Canada to re-examine the traditional approach to the enforcement of nonmonetary judgments10 and paved the way for the Supreme Court’s decision in Pro Swing.

Background to Pro Swing

At issue in Pro Swing was whether a Canadian court should enforce two non-monetary judgments – a consent decree and a contempt order – rendered by a US district court in a trademark dispute.

Pro Swing, a US-based company and the owner of the Trident trademark for use in association with golf clubs, sued Elta Golf, an Ontario company that sold from its website golf clubs bearing the name Rident. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was endorsed by a consent decree of a US district court, enjoining Elta Golf from purchasing, marketing or selling golf clubs or golf club components bearing the Trident mark or variations thereof. Some years later, Pro Swing, upon learning that Elta Golf was violating the consent decree, launched a civil contempt proceeding to enforce the decree. Elta Golf did not appear to defend itself and the US court issued a contempt order.

When Elta failed to comply with the contempt order, Pro Swing asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to recognise and enforce the consent decree and the contempt order. Elta argued that those foreign orders could not be enforced in Ontario because they were not final judgments for a fixed sum of money.

The Ontario Superior Court rejected this defence. It held that the latest jurisprudence opened the way for a relaxation of the traditional common law rule on the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments and that the consent decree and contempt order were enforceable in Ontario. This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which held that although ‘the time is ripe for re-examination of the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments’,11 the orders at issue were not ‘sufficiently certain in [their] terms’12 to be enforced.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision was unanimous that it was time to re-examine the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments:

The principled approach to recognition of foreign monetary judgments in cases such as Morguard and Beals invites application of the same principles to nonmoney judgments in order to preserve the consistency and logic of this body of the law…

The time has come to permit the enforcement of foreign non-money orders where the general principles of Morguard are met and other considerations do not render recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment inadvisable or unjust.13

Although the Court recognised the importance of adjusting the law to suit modern realities, it called for a cautious approach to implementing this change. Since the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments raises issues of policy and enforceability that do not arise when a court merely enforces a judgment debt, ‘[t]he recognition and enforcement of equitable orders will require a balanced measure of restraint and involvement by the domestic court’.14 Specifically, an enforcing court must be left with the necessary discretion to ‘ensure that the orders do not disturb the structure and integrity of the Canadian legal system’ or result in unfair results for the parties.15

In fact, the seven Supreme Court judges who decided Pro Swing were split four to three on how the revised approach applied to the facts at issue in Pro Swing. The majority refused to enforce the foreign contempt order and consent decree, citing the quasi-criminal nature of a contempt order, the ambiguity of the consent decree and the quasi-constitutional protection of personal information.16

The Supreme Court did not provide a comprehensive list of guidelines or criteria to guide lower courts that will be asked to recognise and enforce foreign non-monetary judgments. Throughout the judgment, however, the Court did identify several issues that enforcing courts ought to consider. Justice Deschamps, writing for the majority, said that an enforcing court should be guided by the criteria that guide Canadian courts in crafting domestic non-monetary orders.17 She also set out in general terms the conditions for recognition and enforcement as follows: ‘The judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and must be final, and it must be of a nature that the principle of comity requires the domestic court to enforce.’18 Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the minority, identified three requirements for the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments: first, the issuing court must have properly taken jurisdiction; second, the foreign judgment must be clear and final; and third, the order must not have penal consequences.19

Implications of Pro Swing

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Pro Swing has liberalised Canadian law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments. In place of the common law rule that precluded the recognition and enforcement of these judgments, Canada now has, following on Morguard and Beals, a principled approach that requires courts to enforce foreign non-monetary judgments in appropriate circumstances. This approach will enable litigants to enforce anywhere in Canada a variety of foreign judgments, including injunctions, orders for specific performance of contractual obligations, accountings of profits, and declarations. This approach should also reduce the duplicative (and costly) legal proceedings that previously had to be commenced in two countries when a litigant wished to obtain in Canada the same non-monetary relief that the litigant had obtained in a foreign jurisdiction.

While litigants may appreciate the rationalisation of court processes (and the associated cost-savings) that will likely result from the decision in Pro Swing, some commentators are wary of the liberalised Canadian private international law regime being ushered in unilaterally by cases like Beals and Pro Swing. Janet Walker, a noted Canadian academic in the area of private international law, calls it ‘the great Canadian comity experiment’.20 She worries that Canada’s generous standards for the enforcement of foreign judgments show ‘far more deference to foreign judgments than the basic standards of international comity require’, in some cases (Beals being one of them) at the expense of local defendants.21 This concern suggests that Canadian courts asked to recognise and enforce foreign non-monetary judgments should be mindful to proceed with the caution and restraint that is called for in the Pro Swing decision and, in appropriate cases, revisit and recalibrate the list of defences to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In fact, the majority judgment in Pro Swing leaves open the possibility that there may be defences particular to the nature of non-monetary orders and other considerations, such as laches (delay), that would make it inequitable to enforce a foreign non-monetary judgment.22

The decision in Pro Swing leaves at least one significant question unanswered: how will Pro Swing apply to the various important types of foreign non-monetary interim orders, such as interlocutory/preliminary injunctions, orders for the preservation of property and freezing orders, that are made in today’s complex disputes, particularly disputes with cross-border aspects?

Both the minority and majority judgments in Pro Swing emphasised the ‘finality’ requirement for the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments. The minority defined finality as completeness:

Finality demands that a foreign order establish an obligation that is complete and defined. The obligation need not be final in the sense of being the last step in the litigation process … [but] the order must be complete and not in need of future elaboration.23

The majority said that defining the finality requirement was ‘better left for another day’ but suggested that finality might be more complex in the context of a foreign nonmonetary order than in the context of a monetary order.24

It is not clear how the minority’s definition of finality as ‘complete’ will accommodate the enforcement of foreign non-monetary interim orders. Does the fact that an interim order may be varied or terminated before trial make the order incomplete? Does the fact that an interim order may be elaborated upon, though it is not in ‘need of future elaboration’, make the order incomplete? Given the practical importance of non-monetary interim orders in the international litigation process, there is much to be said in support of Canadian courts’ recognising and enforcing them in a relatively liberal manner. However, because interim orders are typically rendered without a full hearing and complete examination of the merits, arguably ‘[t]here … is less reason for the [enforcing court] to defer to the issuing court’s judgment, and … more reason to examine de novo the merits of the injunction order’.25

Those involved in international litigation around the world should follow with interest the development of Canada’s approaches to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and particularly foreign nonmonetary judgments. These developments are one country’s step in the direction of greater cooperation and coordination among courts of different jurisdictions. Many would say such cross-border cooperation and coordination is sorely needed in this era of increasingly borderless commercial activity. The challenge for other jurisdictions is to find more and better ways to respond effectively to the evolving needs of those involved in transnational disputes.

Barry Leon is a partner in the Toronto office of Torys LLP, where he practises business litigation and international and domestic commercial arbitration.

Sarah Huggins is a lawyer in the Toronto office of Torys LLP, where she practises corporate/commercial litigation, as well as public law and intellectual property litigation.


1. Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc, 2006 SCC 52 at para. 15 [Pro Swing].

2. Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 3155-3163 (CCQ).

3. Pro Swing, supra note 1 at para. 78.

4. [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 [Morguard].

5. [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416 [Beals].

6. Morguard, supra note 4 at 1102.

7. Ibid. at 1106-1107.

8. Beals, supra note 5 at para. 88.

9. Ibid. at paras. 29-32.

10. Port-Cartier Inc v Zerotech Technologies Inc, [1998] 9 W.W.R. 688 (B.C.S.C.); Barrick Gold Corp. v Lopehandia (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 416 (C.A.); Cavell Insurance (Re) (2004), 6 C.B.R. (5th) 11 (S.C.J.), aff’d (2006), 269 D.L.R. (4th) 679 (C.A.); Grace Canada (Re), [2006] O.J. No. 3643 (S.C.J.).

11. Pro Swing Inc. v Elta Golf Inc (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 566 at para. 9 (Ont. C.A.).

12. Ibid. at 10.

13. Pro Swing, supra note 1 at paras. 86-87.

14. Ibid. at para. 14.

15. Ibid. at paras. 15 and 86.

16. The quasi-constitutional protection of personal information was an issue because the contempt order required Elta Golf to provide Pro Swing with information about all the suppliers and purchasers of infringing goods.

17. Pro Swing, supra note 1 at para. 30.

18. Ibid. at para. 31.

19. Ibid. at paras. 90, 91 and 100.

20. Janet Walker, ‘The Great Canadian Comity Experiment Continues’ (2004) 120 L.Q.R. 365.

21. Ibid. at 365-366.

22. Pro Swing, supra note 1 at 28-29.

23. Ibid. at para. 95.

24. Ibid. at para. 29.

25. Ken MacDonald, ‘A New Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Non-Monetary Judgments’ (2006) 31 The Advocates’ Quarterly 44 at 64.

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

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

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.