Articles 2019

Supreme Court of Canada weighs in on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada.

Summaries of this week's OCA decisions (non-criminal). There was one substantial civil law decision from the Court of Appeal this week, along with a number of shorter endorsements. The more substantive decision was an insurance case where a home insurer tried to bring a subrogated claim against its own insured in order to access the insured’s auto policy. The court confirmed that an insurer cannot sue its insured for the very loss covered.

The Court of Appeal released a number of civil decisions this week. Topics include whether an assessment officer has the jurisdiction to rule on the enforceability of a contingency fee agreement between a lawyer and client, personal injury, summary judgment, the waiver of conditions of closing on a real estate transaction, wrongful dismissal and claims between insurers in the statutory accident benefits context.

The Court's decisions this week covered insurance coverage for malicious prosecution claims, the Statute of Frauds, costs in a bankruptcy matter, the revival of a claim that was dismissed for delay because the counterclaim was still proceeding and related to the same facts and evidence, and the interpretation of the Ontario Fault Determination Rules with regard to a chain reaction pile-up accident. Additionally, there were numerous child protection, immigration and criminal decisions.

Recently, the principles applied to limited liability clauses have undergone substantial revision. Limited liability clauses are more likely to be enforced due to the Supreme Court's recent criticism of the doctrine of fundamental breach. Further, limited liability clauses can be used to protect third parties, despite the doctrine of privity of contracts.

In Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguage, 2015 SCC 42, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the only prerequisite to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is that the foreign court had a real and substantial connection with the litigants or the subject matter of the dispute, or that the traditional bases of jurisdiction were satisfied. There is no separate requirement to demonstrate a real and substantial connection between the dispute or the defendant and the enforcing forum.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale which constituted 75% of the costs actually incurred by the successful party.