Archive for the ‘natural justice’ Category

My New Paper: “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada”

January 16, 2014

I’ll be speaking at the upcoming Ontario Bar Association Institute 2014, “Internationalizing Commercial Contracts” program and have prepared a paper entitled “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada”. Here’s the abstract:

This paper provides an overview of the governing conflict of laws principles for the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments, including an analysis of the recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al. and its implications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, generally. The issue of state immunity as an obstacle to foreign judgment enforcement is also considered.

A copy of the paper is available on SSRN here.

SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne

October 30, 2012

I briefly blogged about the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in  Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH v. Hanne last year, mostly because I found the style of cause amusingly long.

If you think that’s a tongue-twister, check out the subsequent decision in SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne, 2012 ABQB 624 (CanLII).

Incidentally, Madam Justice Erb of the Alberta Queen’s Bench ultimately rejected the defendant, Dr. Hanne’s impeachment defences of fraud, natural justice and public policy and held that the German judgment was enforceable in Alberta:

“In this summary trial, the Plaintiff SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG, also known as SHN Grundstücksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG (“SHN”) seeks an Order for recognition and enforcement in Alberta of a judgment issued by the Berlin Regional Court of Germany against the Defendant Dr. Juergen Hanne, also known as Dr. Jürgen Hanne (“Dr. Hanne”).

[98]           I find that this action is appropriate for summary trial; viva voce evidence was not required for the proper hearing of the issues and the test for enforcement of foreign judgments in Alberta has been satisfied and the defences raised by Dr. Hanne are without merit.

Disposition

[99]           Accordingly, there will be an Order recognizing and enforcing the German judgment in Alberta in the total amount of the Canadian equivalent of —1,056,800.25 and interest thereon which includes:

(i) Judgment of the German Regional Court, dated November 11, 2002, for —1,022,583.70 plus interest;

(ii) the order for costs of the German Regional Court, dated November 29, 2002 (and the subsequent order for correction dated January 13, 2003) in the amount of  —21,582.25 and interest thereon; and

(iii) Costs Decision of the German Appeal Court, dated September 26, 2006, for —12, 634.30 and interest thereon.”

[100]      If the parties cannot agree with respect to the calculation of interest, they may seek an order within 30 days. Costs may be spoken to if necessary.

 And now…for a musical interlude….Tongue Tied by GroupLove:

Enforcing UK Judgments in Ontario

July 12, 2012

 The Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom For The Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1984, [the “Convention”] [1] [2]   applies to judgments rendered by the Federal Court of Canada and all reciprocating common law provinces and territories. In Ontario, the Convention is called the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (U.K.) Act, RSO 1990, c R.6 [“REJUKA”] which is the only bi-lateral enforcement convention to which Ontario is a party. REJUKA does not apply to the following types of orders or judgments:

(a) orders for the periodic payment of maintenance;

(b) the recovery of taxes, duties or charges of a like nature or the recovery of a fine or penalty;

(c) judgments given on appeal from decisions of tribunals other than courts;

(d) judgments which determine

(i) the status or legal capacity of natural persons;

(ii) custody or guardianship of infants;

(iii) matrimonial matters;

(iv) succession to or the administration of the estates of deceased persons;

(v) bankruptcy, insolvency or the winding up of companies or other legal persons;

(vi) the management of the affairs of a person not capable of managing his own affairs.

REJUKA provides for a “simple and rapid” procedure for registration of the UK judgment, without having to commence a civil action on the original debt. Article IV sets out the various grounds for refusal or setting aside registration of the UK judgment. Article V deals with establishing jurisdiction of the UK court in granting the original UK judgment.

The relative ease of enforcing UK judgments under REJUKA is highlighted in the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Tarlo Lyons v. Gauthier, 2012 ONCA 39 (CanLII) (S.C.C. application for leave to appeal denied, (34723) , July 12, 2012). The appeal panel’s brief endorsement reads: (more…)

Guest Post at Letters Blogatory: Lago Agrio Plaintiffs Enforcement Action in Canada

June 5, 2012
Chevron Corporation

Chevron Corporation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those interested in the Chevron/Ecuador case, I have written a guest post over at Letters Blogatory on the recent enforcement action filed by the Lago Agrio plaintiffs in Ontario:  Guest Post: Comments on the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs Enforcement Action in Canada.

Thanks again to Ted Folkman at Letters Blogatory for inviting me to guest blog on this important case.

 

 

My New Article in the Canadian International Lawyer

October 21, 2011

I have published a new article in the latest issue of the Canadian Bar Association’s Canadian International Lawyer journal entitled, “Adjudicating International Human Rights Claims in Canada”, (2011), 8(3) Cdn. Int. Lawyer 117-133. Here is the abstract:

This article addresses the issue of the privatization of justice and whether a social contract model is appropriate in disputes affecting the public interest, if one accepts the premise that international human rights claims fall under the rubric of “public order” or public interest. The article then explores the implications of promoting a social contract model for advancing and adjudicating international human rights claims in Canada against corporate and state actors, both from the perspective of litigation and arbitration. It concludes with an overview of recent federal legislative reforms relating to state-sponsored terrorism and international human rights standards.

A pdf copy of the article is available for download here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,835 other followers

%d bloggers like this: