Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye

Hearing: April 23, 1990
Judgment: December 20, 1990


Full case name:	Douglas De Savoye v. Morguard Investments Limited and Credit Foncier Trust Company
Citations:	[1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077
Ruling:	De Savoye appeal dismissed

Holding

a foreign judgment will be enforced where there is a "real and substantial connection" to the forum

Court membership

Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin

Reasons given

Unanimous reason by: La Forest J.

Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the enforcement of extraprovincial judgments. The Court held that the standard to evaluate the validity of a judgement is not the same as it is between nations, rather the Court adopts the test from the House of Lords decision of Indyka v. Indyka, [1969] 1 A.C. 33 where there must be "a real and substantial connection" between the petitioner and the country or territory exercising jurisdiction.

1 Facts
2 Issue
3 Holding
4 Reasoning
5 Aftermath
6 See also
7 External links

[edit] Facts

The appellant was the mortgagor of the property, who had moved to British Columbia. The mortgages defaulted and the respondents brought action in Alberta, for the land they had mortgaged in that same province.

The appellant chose not to appear or defend his actions. The respondents obtained judgment ex juris in the foreclosure action, and then obtained orders for the judicial sale of the properties. They then initiated separate action in the British Columbia Supreme Court to enforce the Alberta judgments for the shortfall.

[edit] Issue

The main question placed before the court was the degree of recognition that should be accorded by the courts of one province to the judgments of another for a personal action brought forward in the second province when the defendent did not reside there.

[edit] Holding

The appeal was dismissed.

[edit] Reasoning

The court relied upon the principle of comity, the concept that countries may in some circumstances enforce judgments rendered in other countries. Comity should be even stronger within a federation between provinces, which share a much deeper bond than nations, based on shared citizenship and a common market.

[edit] Aftermath

The test established in this case was later elaborated on in Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.) The Court of Appeal listed eight factors to be considered when determining whether there is a real and substantial connection:

the connection between the forum and the plaintiff's claim;
the connection between the forum and the defendant;
unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
the involvement of other parties to the suit;
the court's willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature; and
comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere.