Beals v. Saldanha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beals v. Saldanha

Hearing: February 20, 2003
Judgment: December 18, 2003


Full case name:	Geoffrey Saldanha, Leueen Saldanha and Dominic Thivy v. Frederick H. Beals III and Patricia A. Beals
Citations:	[2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 2003 SCC 72
History:	On appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal

Court membership

Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin C.J.
Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, and Marie Deschamps JJ.

Reasons given

Majority by: Major
Joined by: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Arbour and Deschamps JJ.
Dissent by: Binnie
Joined by: Iacobucci
Dissent by: LeBel

Beals v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 2003 SCC 72 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the conflict of laws, where the Court established the requirements to enforce foreign judgments in Canada. The Court held that foreign judgments were enforceable in Canada where there was a "real and substantial connection" with Canada.

[edit] Background

Geoffrey and Leueen Saldanha and Dominic Thivy were residents of Ontario and sold lots they owned in Florida to Frederick and Patricia Beals. Beals brought an action against Saldanha and Thivy when it was discovered that the defendants did not actually own the property they sold. A defence was filed with the Court but did nothing afterwards and defaulted. A jury awarded Beals $260,000 in damages.

Thivy and Saldanha were informed by a lawyer in Ontario that the judgment could not be enforced and so they did nothing.

Soon Beals brought an action in Ontario to enforce the judgment, which had grown to $800,000 with interest.

At trial the judgment was denied on the basis that the damages had been improperly assessed. On Appeal the Court allowed the foreign judgment.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a judgment issued by a Court in Florida could be enforced in Ontario, and whether the defendant could seek refuge under section 7 of the Charter.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

In a six to three decision, the Court found that the judgment was enforceable. The Court applied the "real and substantial connection" test from the earlier decision of Morguard v. De Savoye to the international context. The test requires the Court to consider whether the subject-matter of the suit or the person involved had a "real and substantial" connection with the country. The Court noted, however, that judgments with sufficient connection will not be enforced if they are contrary to Canadian public policy, contrary to natural justice, or obtained through fraud.