![]() Asking a court to decide whether or not to enforce a foreign order to produce certain documents despite glaring differences in our domestic privacy laws is a much different thing then asking a court to enforce a monetary debt that arose from foreign proceedings. ![]() Non-monetary judgments affect an individual’s rights in a way that simple monetary judgments do not (by for example, enjoining someone to do something or forcing them to take a specific course of action) and are therefore subject to stronger public policy concerns. My position is strengthened when we look at how potentially wide-spread the implications of this decision are. Should the courts step in where the executive has (we must assume purposefully) rejected the idea of changing an established, long standing rule? It is my belief that they should not. Regardless of how sensible the recommendations are, the fact that the executive has obviously been alerted to the problem and has chosen not to act is telling. The SCC also concludes that it is in the best position to make such an incremental change to the common law. ![]() The SCC therefore concludes that a need for change exists. Throughout the SCC’s decision, we are alerted to the fact that there have been many provincial law reform proposals and studies that recommend the law be altered to recognize foreign non-monetary judgments, and yet no legislative action has been taken. Although I agree that the old common law rule no longer makes sense in an increasingly globalized world, I disagree with the fact that it was the judiciary who stepped in to make this change. Unanimously, the SCC declared that it was time to update the common law and enforce foreign non-monetary judgments. Until then, foreign non-monetary judgments were simply unrecognized in Canada. This was the unfortunate state of the common law before the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) changed everything in the case of Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc, 2006 SCC 52. Therefore, if you were faced with a defendant who skips across the border, you would have to start the entire litigation process again in the new jurisdiction to ensure that the defendant respects the judgment against him. ![]() Now imagine that your judgment is for some kind of non-monetary relief: an injunction, an order for specific performance or the like, and you are told that you cannot enforce this type of judgment across any international borders. You are finally free to move on with your life. If this data is unavailable or inaccurate and you own or represent this business, click here for more information on how you may be able to correct it.Imagine being a plaintiff at the very second that a successful outcome has been announced: you feel overjoyed that the scales of justice have finally tipped in your favor and relief that the money and effort you’ve expended over the past months and years have not been in vain. VIEW ADDITIONAL DATA Select from over 115 networks below to view available data about this business.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |