Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50892
QUIZ ON CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION ISSUES Greg Richards. Q uiz on cross -border litigation issues provided by WeirFoulds LLP partner, 1 against your competitor in one of the Canadian provinces, but your competitor then commences litigation on the same or similar issues in the state of Delaware where both companies do business. To avoid fighting similar lawsuits in two jurisdictions, you seek a stay in the Delaware court but lose the motion. A colleague tells you that you're out of luck and now have to fight both actions. TRUE or FALSE? 2 You have recently been hired as in-house counsel for a Canadian corporation. Soon after arriving, you are advised of a judgment awarded against the company in the state of Texas where it does a modest amount of sales. The company did not appear in the case or mount a defence. The case was tried by a jury that awarded compensatory damages of $410,000 and punitive damages of $1 million. The Texas plaintiff is now seeking to enforce the judgment in Canada. Your mind races through the possibilities. Which outcome is most likely? A) Canadian courts will not recognize the excessive judgment of a Texas jury and you are entitled to require the plaintiff to prove its case in Canada. B) An action of this sort, involving a complex commercial dispute, would not be heard by a jury in Canadian courts and, therefore, Canadian courts will not recognize this particular Texas judgment. C) Punitive damages were clearly not warranted, it being a standard commercial case, and punitive damages of this size would not be awarded in Canada – therefore, at least the company will not have to pay the punitive damages. D) Canadian courts are likely to give effect to the Texas judgment. You are in-house counsel to a company in Canada that has a long-standing dispute with a competitor that also operates in Canada. As well, both companies conduct business in the U.S. To date, you have enjoyed some success in litigation that all disputes arising under or in connection with the goods sold under it would be submitted to the courts of Portugal. Your company sues the supplier in the courts of a Canadian province and, when the supplier brings a motion to stay the proceedings, you are planning to argue that the supplier has fundamentally breached the agreement by delivering goods that are effectively worthless. Your CEO is confident that a Canadian court will review and confirm that the contract has been fundamentally breached and refuse to enforce the forum selection clause in the bill of lading. TRUE or FALSE? 3 4 You are general counsel to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. The general counsel of the parent company asks whether a class action brought in the U.S. has the potential to bind potential class members in Ontario. You tell her off the top of your head that, even though the class actions legislation in Ontario differs from that south of the border, a class action probably does not have to be commenced in the province in order to bind Ontario residents who are potential class plaintiffs. RIGHT or WRONG? You are general counsel for an importer of goods from Europe. One of your suppliers is based in Portugal. A dispute arises with respect to the most recent shipment of goods. The Portuguese company's bill of lading stipulates See answers on page 24 C ANADIAN Lawyer INHOUSE DECEMBER 2008 23