Principles of private international law and forum non conveniens are complicated. Cross-border trade often results in contractual disputes. The first question that often needs to be addressed is which country’s court system has jurisdiction. Ontario has grappled with issues such as this through passing legislation and through the development of the common law as it relates to private international law.
The purpose of this article is to provide counsel with practical advice concerning the strict legal and procedural requirements which will need to be met before an Ontario court will recognize and enforce a U.S. judgment.
Ontario lawyers are increasingly establishing strategic alliances with Israeli attorneys to better serve their clients. Why? There are lots of reasons. Enforcement of Israeli court orders in Ontario, increased trade between the countries requiring cooperation between corporate and tax counsel, and families with members in both jurisdictions requiring cooperation in family law and estate disputes. Take this scenario for example. Stella lives with her son in her Toronto home. She bought an apartment in Jerusalem to be close to her daughter. She lives half the year in her Toronto home to be close to her son and half the year…
Americans sued in Ontario are at risk. Sometimes these defendants ignore Ontario law suits because they have no assets in Canada. That may be unwise. Ontario courts, under certain circumstances, will assume jurisdiction and grant judgments against American defendants.
This article addresses the risks to Israelis being sued in Ontario, Canada. Sometimes there is a tendency for Israeli defendants to ignore Ontario lawsuits. Perhaps they feel judgment proof because they have no assets in Canada. That may be unwise.
The purpose of this article is to review how an American plaintiff can enforce a U.S. judgment in Ontario Canada and to address the process of obtaining an Ontario court's recognition and enforcement of the American judgment. Given the historic high level of trade between the United States and Canada it is no surprise that there are commercial disputes resulting in litigation. Where problems sometime arise is in enforcement of the foreign judgments obtained.
In Towne Meadow Development Corp. v. Israel Development Bank the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to determine the appropriate location for litigating a dispute. A Canadian construction company hoped to build in Israel. The Israeli bank granted it credit. A shareholder of the company allegedly pledged company assets to secure the loan. The bank then called in its line of credit for repayment wanting access to the assets.
Ontario lawyers are increasingly establishing strategic alliances with Israeli attorneys to better serve their clients. Why? There are lots of reasons. Enforcement of Israeli court orders in Ontario, increased trade between the countries requiring cooperation between corporate and tax counsel, and families with members in both jurisdictions requiring cooperation in Family law and estate disputes.
Izzie Schwartz hired Selila Ness to work for his travel agency doing business in Israel and the United States called “Izzie Travels”. Soon, Izzie recognized Selila’s talent and delegated complete control of his business to her. He trusted her with his client lists, introduced her to his contacts and Selila managed the business Izzie built. After ten years Selila quit. She moved to Ontario and created her own Travel Agency. Selila used all of Izzie’s contacts, made use of his client lists and was a complete success. That success came at Izzie’s expense. Selila’s contract with Izzie provided that she would not complete with Izzie Travels in any similar activity for a period of three years. Since Selila was in Ontario he sued her in that jurisdiction.
Ontario courts order security for costs to protect local defendants from foreign litigants who launch frivolous or vexatious claims and do not have the money to cover a potential cost award against them. Foreign plaintiffs may have assets outside of Ontario and possibly defeat a security for costs motion if his assets are accessible to satisfy a judgment because of reciprocal enforcement legislation.
Private international law and forum non conveniens is complicated. It is really too complicated to properly address is a simple blog. But, let’s consider this as wetting your appetite on the subject. So let me tell you what happened and let’s see if you come to the same conclusion as Justice Hoilett of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Towne Meadow Development Corp. v. Israel Development Bank the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to determine the appropriate location for litigating a dispute. A Canadian construction company hoped to build in Israel. The Israeli bank granted it credit. A shareholder of the company allegedly pledged company assets to secure the loan. The bank then called in its line of credit for repayment wanting access to the assets. The builder suggested that Ontario law applied and that the court case should be heard in Ontario. The Israeli bank disagreed.