Originally from: Enforcement of Money Judgments - Looseleaf
Enforcement of Money Judgments - Electronic
Preview Page
Canada
Igor Ellyn, QC and Jean-Pierre Sheppard
I. PRESENT ATTITUDE TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS
A. Describe the receptiveness of your government (including
courts) toward enforcement of foreign money judgments.
Canadian courts are very receptive to the enforcement of final and
conclusive foreign money judgments subject to certain statutory
exceptions and procedural requirements. Since the 1990s, Canadian
courts have recognized that the law relating to the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments has been modernized significantly to
reflect the changing needs and dictates of the forces of globalization.
Canada’s federal and provincial legislation and jurisprudence foster
respect for foreign money judgments made according to the rule of law
and consistent with Canadian public policy considerations.
The Canadian judicial attitude is reflected in the statement of a
commentator who wrote that “[i]t is a tribute to Canadian
internationalism that our courts have seen no reason why Canadian
defendants should be any less liable under a default judgment from the
United States or the United Kingdom than under a default judgment
from elsewhere in Canada.
The principle of comity, which is the deference and respect due by
other states to the actions of a state legitimately taken within its
territory, underlies the recognition of foreign judgments in Canada.
Canadian courts recognize that “full faith and credit” should be given
to a judgment granted in another province, territory or country as long
as the judgment-making court had properly and appropriately exercised
jurisdiction in the action. Jurisdiction is proper where the legal forum
has a “real and substantial connection” to the matter in question. The
“real and substantial connection” test has been adopted as the
appropriate test to determine if the courts of another province, territory
or country had appropriately exercised its jurisdiction. The “real and
substantial connection test is so broad that there are very few situations
in which it would not be met.
