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 ANSWERS absent fraud going to jurisdiction or the applicability of a public policy defence showing the foreign judgment is contrary to the Canadian concept of justice, a foreign money judgment will be enforced if there was a "real and substantial connection" between the cause of action and the foreign court. If the company was doing business in Texas, or otherwise had a sufficient connection to that jurisdiction, the courts of our Canadian provinces will give effect to the judgment. In Beals v. Saldanha, what began as the purchase of a lot in Florida for US$4,000, went to a jury trial in that state, then ended up costing the Canadian defendants (who did not defend the case in Florida) US$210,000 in compensatory damages and US$50,000 in punitive damages. By the time of the first Canadian hearing in 1998, the judgment, with interest, had grown to approximately C$800,000. Ouch! For the principles that are applicable to the enforcement of foreign non-money judgments, see Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612. 1 2 False. Another option is to bring an anti-suit injunction in the Canadian jurisdiction in which you are already proceeding. On the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Amchem Products Incorporated v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, you would seek an in personam remedy against your competitor to restrain it from resorting to the judicial system of another jurisdiction (in this case, Delaware) to prosecute litigation that you will argue is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate decisions made in the proceedings in Canada, where the dispute has the greatest connection. To succeed, you must demonstrate that the court of the Canadian province is the more appropriate forum for the airing of the dispute and that the Delaware court failed to properly decline jurisdiction applying the forum non conveniens test. Presented by 3rd Annual (D). Get the chequebook ready. In the seminal case of Beals v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, the Supreme Court of Canada held that, the "strong cause" test is met, and there is a validly concluded bill of lading, a forum selection clause will generally be enforced. The court will not delve into whether one party has deviated from, or fundamentally breached, an otherwise validly-formed contract because this type of inquiry would render forum selection clauses illusory. Issues respecting an alleged fundamental breach of contract or deviation from the contract terms will, generally speaking, be determined under the law and by the court chosen by the parties in the contract document. 3 to order that the settlement in that particular case bound unreceptive Canadian class members, the court held that, in appropriate circumstances, there could be such binding effect. The court held that, provided (a) there is a real and substantial connection linking the cause of action to the foreign jurisdiction, (b) the rights of the non-resident class members are adequately represented, and (c) non-resident class members are accorded procedural fairness including adequate notice, Canadian class members who do not opt out may be bound by a foreign judgment or settlement. For a recent application of Currie, see Wong v. TJX Companies Inc., [2008] CanLII 3421 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). 4 YOUR RANKING? 1 or fewer correct: Might be time to brush up. 2-3 correct: Not bad, but could do better. 4 correct: Impressive. FIRST 20 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL REGISTER FOR FREE! IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM Winning Strategies for Providing Legal Services as an Integral Member of the Business Team February 26 – 27, 2009 | Toronto Whether you are in-house or external corporate counsel, you will benefit from the opportunity to dialogue with peers at this unique networking event and hear from the distinguished conference faculty representing these organizations: Rogers Communications Inc. TD Bank Financial Group George Weston Limited The Royal Bank of Canada Toronto Transit Commission Aon Reed Stanhouse Inc. Greater Toronto Airports Authority Canadian National Railways Company AECON Group Inc. Arch Insurance Company SAP Canada Inc. Verizon Inc. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. AEGON Canada Inc. ArcelorMittal Dofasco GM Canada Inc. BMW Canada Inc. Hoffman La-Roche Limited Plus, don't miss The In-House Counsel Leadership Award and Reception Program moderated by Anthony Paonita, Editor, Corporate Counsel Magazine and recognizing leaders in Environmental Stewardship, Innovation, Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance and Alternative Dispute Resolution. To nominate an organization for one of these awards visit www.insightinfo.com/InHouseCounselAwards Media Partner ENROLL TODAY! 1 888 777-1707 | www.insightinfo.com/InHouseCounsel 24 DECEMBER 2008 C ANADIAN Lawyer INHOUSE Untitled-2 1 12/1/08 4:15:16 PM Right. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal in Currie v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.) declined False. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450 establishes that where