Interprovincial Enforcement of Non-Money Judgements 1996



Footnotes

Footnote: 1 The contribution of Jason Squire, a research assistant with the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, in the preparation of this Report is gratefully acknowledged.

Eg. Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR 2; Morguard Investments v. De Savoy, [1991] 2 WWR 217; Hunt v. T&N plc, [1993] 4 SCR 289.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 2 John Swan, in "La 'constitutionalisation' d'un conflit de droit international privé canadien" (1994), 1 Canadian International Lawyer 14, goes as far as to say that Morguard and Hunt show that choice of law rules in interprovincial conflicts within Canada may be replaced by constitutional principles. Perhaps the common law is filling the void in our Constitution left by the lack of a full faith and credit provision?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 3 Supra n. 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 4 See Uniform Law Conference of Canada, 1992 Proceedings at 318. The Uniform Act is also reproduced in Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Report on the UECJA at 44 (LRC 122,1992). The french language version of the Uniform Act will be found at Uniform Law Conference of Canada, 1991 Proceedings at 431.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 5 Supra n. 1 at 237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 6 Whyte, "Enforcement of foreign judgments in equity" (1982), 9 Syd LR 630.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 7 (1737), 1 Atk. 408; 26 ER 259.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 8 Ibid., at 259 (ER).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 9 (1834) 8 Bligh NS 301; 2 Cl & F 470; 5 ER 955.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 10 Houlditch is only mentioned in terms of the appointment by equity of a receiver for foreign immovable assets (8 Hals. (4th) par. 648). The equitable jurisdiction over enforcement of foreign decrees and orders is not considered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 11 (1888), 58 LJ Ch 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 12 Supra. note 6,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 13 See Spencer Bower and Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2d ed.), Butterworths (London: 1969) for a more detailed history and analysis of the doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 14 Ibid., para. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 15 Ibid., para. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 16 (1981) 32 O.R. (2d) 676 (HC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 17 Angle v. M.N.R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248 at 254-55.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 18 Spencer Bower and Turner, supra n. 13, para. 12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 19 See Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; . Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, part 2.1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 20 While there is no uniform act on this topic, substantial uniformity does exist. See (BC) Probate Recognition Act, R.S.B.C 1979, c. 339 [with origins as S.B.C. 1889, c. 19]; (Alberta) Administration of Estates Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. A-1, s. 30 [S.A. 1969, c. 31]; (New Brunswick) Probate Court Act, S.N.B. 1982, c. P-17.1, s. 73; (Ontario) Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21, s. 52 [S.O. 51 V., c. 9 (1888)]; (Manitoba) Court of Queens Bench Surrogate Practice Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C290, ss. 48, 50; (PEI) Probate Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. P-21, ss. 42-45 [S.P.E.I. 1939, c. 41, s. 56]; (Newfoundland) Judicature Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. J-4 [S.N. 1986, c. 42]; (Saskatchewan) Surrogate Court Act, R.S.S. 1979, c. S-66, ss. 78-80 [1930, c. 51, s. 76]; (Nova Scotia) Probate Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 359, s. 34 [1889, c. 12]. The statutes vary a bit in scope from province to province. All provinces except for Newfoundland name the United Kingdom in the legislation as a terrirory whose probates granted by a court of competent jurisdiction will be recognised. All provinces except for BC, PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia mention the other Canadian provinces; presumably PEI would include other provinces as "any part of the British Commonwealth". BC and Newfoundland provide that territories whose probates will be recognised be designated by regulation. Nova Scotia will recognize the probates of any British province, territory or possession. New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan also recognize the probate orders of all the United States. Many of the common law provinces' resealing provisions define "probate" to include letters of verification from Quebec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 21. Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 22 1968.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 23 1971.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 24 The corresponding provision of the Brussels Convention, Art. 25, is framed in similar terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 25. These include certain family law matters, succession matters and bankruptcy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 26 Corp. Jur. Sec, "Judgments" par. 868 (a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 27 13 Uniform Laws Annotated 149 (West Pub. Co.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 28 At 13 Uniform Laws Annotated 183-84 (West Pub. Co.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 29  La Verne v. Jackson (1967), 84 Ill App 2d 445; 228 NE 2d 249, Schroeder v. Homestead Corp. (1956), 163 Neb 43; 77 NW 2d 618, Marie Callender Pie Shops, Inc. v. Bumbleberry Enterprises, Inc. (1979), 39 Or App 487; 592 P2d 1050.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 30 The fact that "full faith and credit" does not seem to have provided a vehicle for the enforcement of non-money judgments may reflect other constitutional forces at work. The enforcement of an out-of-state judgment will be overlaid by a requirement that "due process" has been observed and the court in the state where enforcement is sought can inquire into whether the original court properly took jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 31 Including Judgment Extension Act 1868 and Inferior Courts Judgment Extension Act 1868.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 32 Re Dundee and Suburban Railway Co. (1888), 58 LJ Ch. 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 33 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sched. 7, par. 6; R Black, "Enforcement of Scottish decrees outside Scotland and of non-Scottish decrees within Scotland." (1987) 32 JLS Scotland 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 34 Ss. 18(3), (5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 35 S. 18(5)(d). This appears to reflect similar provisions in the Brussels Convention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 36 S. 18(5)(d). This probably corresponds to the common law requirement for finality. The provision likely excludes the enforcement of Mareva injunctions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 37 Schedule 7, par. 5(5). This seems aimed at creating a "public policy" exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 38 Stone, "The Civil jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982: Some comments." (1983) 32 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 477 at 487-88.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 39 Ibid., 488.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 40 Ibid., 488.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 41 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 42 S. 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 43 See Law Reform Commission (Australia), Report on Service and Execution of Process at 228 (Report No. 40, 1987)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 44 See Law Reform Commission (Australia), ibid at 234.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 45 Assuming it has adopted the Uniform Court Orders Compliance Act. See s. 5(2)(e).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: 46 An example of a judicial escape hatch is found in section 50(7) of the Uniform Arbitration Act which permits a court to refuse to enforce arbitral award:
50. (7) If the award gives a remedy that the court does not have jurisdiction to grant or would not grant in a proceeding based on similar circumstances, the court may,
(a)    grant a different remedy requested by the applicant; or
(b)    in the case of an award made in (enacting jurisdiction), remit it to the arbitral tribunal with the court's opinion, in which case the arbitral tribunal may award a different remedy.

March 1997




Next Annual Meeting

2018 Conference (Centennial)

Delta Hotel

Québec City, QC

August 12 - 16, 2018