In Roger Vanden Berghe NV v. Korhani of Canada Inc. ("Roger"), the Belgian Applicant obtained a judgement in Belgium against the Canadian Respondent for unpaid invoices (the "Belgian Judgment"). The Respondent ignored the Belgian Judgment for over a year. In response, the Applicant sought enforcement of the Belgian Judgment in Ontario.
The Respondent objected to the Applicant's enforcement of the Belgian Judgment in Ontario on the grounds that: 1) fraud had existed, 2) that they were denied natural justice as they were unable to defend themselves in Belgium, and 3) the Belgian Court had no real and/or substantial connection with the litigants in question.
The Court rejected the Respondent's arguments and granted an Order recognizing the Belgian Judgment as if it was an Ontario Judgment. In its reasons, the Court held that once the elements for bringing an application to enforce a foreign judgment have been met by the Applicant (which they had in this case), the burden then shifts to the Respondent to establish the availability of a defence.
The Court affirmed the longstanding test that the lack of natural justice defence applies only when the foreign judgment in question was contrary to Canadian principles of natural justice. The Respondent in Rogers failed to provide evidence to support this. The Court further found that the Respondent's argument that they were unable to defend themselves in Belgium was unsupported by their evidence, nor did the Respondent provide evidence to suggest fraud occurred. As such, the Belgian Judgment passed the test to be recognized as a Canadian Judgment.
Originally published November 1, 2024
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.
