Canada: To Defend Or Not Defend Oneself Before A Foreign Court? That Is The Question!

Last Updated: May 28 2019
Article by Laurent Debrun

Barer v. Knight Brothers LLC 2019 SCC 13

The Supreme Court of Canada reminds us of the serious legal consequences of certain actions which a Quebec resident prosecuted in a foreign court may take and which a Quebec Court will later qualify as a recognition of the jurisdiction of such foreign court.


Barer resides in Quebec. He was sued by Knight, an American company, in the State of Utah together with two companies he controlled, one of which, BEC, is an American company based in Vermont, the other one is a Canadian corporation. Knight claimed from them the difference between the price of a contract and additional work that Barer would have agreed to during a telephone conversation. Barer would have confirmed to Knight that the additional costs associated with the changes to the work order would be duly paid. Barer was not a party to the contract. Knight requested the lifting of the corporate veil on the grounds of fraud, unjust enrichment and delict. Barer responded to the suit by requesting the summary dismissal of the suit and challenged the jurisdiction of the court over him.

Barer and the two corporate defendants accepted service of the complaint and entered their appearance before the Utah court. The three defendants then pursued a different strategy. BEC, the party to the contract with Knight, filed an answer, defence and counterclaim. BEC did not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Utah court and was satisfied with denying the facts underlying the claim. The Canadian corporation presented a motion to allow its counsel to withdraw on the ground that it did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Utah court and would not participate in the proceedings. As it did not defend itself, the Utah court entered a default judgment. Barer brought a motion to have the claim asserted against him personally dismissed on a preliminary basis. Barer denied that the two companies were his alter egos, that the fraudulent misrepresentation claim having caused the alleged pure economic loss was barred under Utah law and, finally, that the Utah court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. Barer's motion to dismiss and each of its grounds were dismissed and the court allowed the case to proceed to trial upon its merits. A default judgement was then rendered against the three defendants.

Now Knight applies to the Superior Court in Quebec to have the Utah default judgment recognized and enforced against Barer in Quebec.

How did the Supreme Court decide that Barer had "recognized" the jurisdiction of the Utah court?

In order to contest Barer's motion to dismiss in Utah, Knight had filed as evidence various exhibits and an affidavit in support of its claim. Under Utah law, this evidence can be taken as proven for the court to decide the motion to dismiss. In the view of the Utah court, having the three defendants judged together, in one action, furthered the interest of the international justice system. The Utah court found that Knight's evidence supported its alter ego claim, prima facie. Barer never filed a defence, although he was invited to do so. Barer only took part in a settlement conference, which is an obligatory requirement in Utah. According to Barer, this did not mean that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. So what positive action, taken by Barer in Utah, was successfully raised against him by Knight so that the Quebec Superior Court recognized and enforced the default judgement rendered in Utah?

Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal held that Barer, through his conduct, had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Utah court and therefore Quebec courts had to recognize and enforce the default judgment. By presenting substantive arguments, in support of his motion to dismiss based on the Utah court lacking jurisdiction, a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada agreed that Barer submitted to the Utah court's jurisdiction in accordance with art. 3168(6) of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ.). This was sufficient to establish the requisite connection between the substance of the dispute, the parties and the Utah court. Therefore, Barer had no legal means to oppose recognition and enforcement in Quebec.

The dilemma, for any resident of Quebec, is therefore to choose between defending oneself abroad or playing the "empty seat" card. The risks and benefits of the strategy to be adopted in the event of prosecution abroad must be considered with extreme caution, even though the deadline to respond is often very short. This decision confirms once again the importance of a multi-jurisdictional analysis of the dispute from the very beginning and of a close cooperation between the Quebec and foreign attorneys so that sound decisions can be made before the foreign court.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The Supreme Court indicated that the objective of the CCQ is to ensure that any legal decision rendered outside of Quebec will be recognized and declared enforceable in Quebec, save for specific exceptions. This key principle dates back to prior judgements of the Supreme Court such as Beals v. Saldanha, (2013) S.C.R. 416. Dan Beals, a resident of Canada, had sold his property located in Florida for $8,000. He was sued by the purchaser, but failed to defend himself and a jury entered a default judgement against him in the amount of $260,000. At the Supreme Court level, the judgement, with interest, was approximately $1,000,000. The Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Beals was barred from invoking in Canada defences that he could have raised in Florida. The judgement was therefore recognized in Canada.

There are only six exceptions under Quebec law which allow Quebec courts to depart from this general principle and to refuse to recognize a foreign decision. The main exception is that the foreign court had no jurisdiction over the dispute (article 3155 CCQ).

Anyone intending to have a foreign decision recognized in Quebec must prove the existence of 1 of the 6 grounds listed in article 3168 CCQ so that the indirect international jurisdiction of the foreign authority is recognized; only 1 of the 6 is required. Article 3168 CCQ. provides:

" 3168. In personal actions of a patrimonial nature, the jurisdiction of foreign authorities is recognized only in the following cases:

(1) the defendant was domiciled in the State where the decision was rendered;

(2) the defendant possessed an establishment in the State where the decision was rendered and the dispute relates to its activities in that State;

(3) injury was suffered in the State where the decision was rendered and it resulted from a fault which was committed in that State or from an injurious act or omission which occurred there;

(4) the obligations arising from a contract were to be performed in that State;

(5) the parties have submitted to the foreign authorities the present or future disputes between themselves arising out of a specific legal relationship; however, renunciation by a consumer or a worker of the jurisdiction of the authority of his place of domicile may not be set up against him;

(6) the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign authorities.»

According to the Supreme Court, this list is exhaustive. By filing arguments in Utah which, had they been found valid, would have resolved the matter in whole or in part, this constituted either an implicit or explicit recognition by Barer of the indirect international jurisdiction of the foreign court in accordance with art. 3168(6) CCQ.

Barer argued in Quebec (but did not present evidence as to the state of Utah law) that he was required, according to that foreign law, to argue both the merits and substance of his defence while contesting jurisdiction at the preliminary stage, failing which he risked being barred from doing so at a late date. The Supreme Court noted that Barer had the burden of proving that this is the procedural law in this foreign state and he did not.

An application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign decision is a judicial demand giving rise to an adversarial relationship to which the general rules of civil procedure apply. Therefore, parties are not exempted from the requirement imposed by article 2803 CCQ. The applicant must prove the facts on which the right to recognition of the foreign decision is based. Quebec courts must examine the evidence to ensure that the foreign court had jurisdiction in accordance with article 3168 CCQ.

Refraining from appearing or appearing only to contest the jurisdiction of the foreign court can show that the defendant did not recognize the jurisdiction of the foreign court. However, the Supreme Court rejected the theory that a defendant should be allowed to argue the merits while contesting jurisdiction, to lose and then claim lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court to contest recognition of an unfavourable foreign decision in Quebec. It would be unfair if the defendant had the opportunity of convincing the foreign authority of the merits of his case while maintaining his right to later challenge the jurisdiction of such authority if he is ultimately displeased with the decision. It would be giving him a second chance (legal mulligan).

In his motion to dismiss in Utah, Barer presented at least one argument to contest the merits of the action against him, which, had it been accepted, would have led to a final conclusion in his favour. Barer attempted to take advantage of the proceedings in Utah to resolve the dispute in his favour and lost. He could not later ask the Quebec courts to shield him from the consequences of having lost a legal battle that he chose to fight in Utah. This is contrary to both the principle of comity and the efficient use of international judicial resources.


A Quebec resident who believes that he is wrongfully prosecuted abroad must not take any action that could later be interpreted by a Quebec court as a recognition of the indirect international jurisdiction of the foreign court. If he is required by local laws to contest simultaneously jurisdiction and the merits of the claim before the foreign court, he must be prepared to prove in Quebec that this is the state of the law abroad in order to avoid a Quebec court concluding that he recognized the foreign court's jurisdiction. If a challenge to the foreign court's jurisdiction is dismissed, the question is then what can the Quebec defendant continue to argue before the foreign court without it being later seen as a recognition of jurisdiction. For example, if Barer had completely ceased taking part in the proceedings in Utah once his motion to dismiss was dismissed, the Quebec courts may have examined the situation differently and not have found that he had recognized the foreign court's jurisdiction within the meaning of article 3168 (6) CCQ.

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 Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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