In Shanghai Investment Co. Ltd. V. Lu et al. 2024 ONSC 2762, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List), allowed a foreign arbitral award to be recognised and made enforceable as a partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Shanghai Lianyin Investment Co Ltd. (“SLIC”) sought the recognition and enforcement of a CAD $233 million arbitral award rendered under the rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Committee (“CIETAC”) against the Defendant Zheng Yao Lu (“Lu”) as a threshold matter; and a declaration that the other defendant, Lichun Guo (“Guo”) held her interest in two properties in Ontario on behalf of Lu, and that SLIC could enforce its award against these properties. The court found that the CIETAC award should be recognised and made enforceable as both of the following requirements under Articles IV and V of the New York Convention (incorporated in the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. … Read More
Jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in the Digital Age – Ontario Court Refuses to Certify Class Action against the United States Largest Cryptocurrency Exchange due to Lack of Jurisdiction
In Shirodkar v Coinbase Global Inc. et al, 2024 ONSC 1399, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides a review of jurisdictional challenges and the issue of forum non conveniens involving a cryptocurrency class action. The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., along with its affiliated entities (“Coinbase”), faced a class action lawsuit brought by a user of its online trading platform, Mr. Shirodkar, which Coinbase sought to dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction. Coinbase operates a platform for buying and selling digital assets, including cryptocurrency. Between October 2017 and January 2021, Mr. Shirodkar conducted transactions on the Coinbase platform while residing in France and later in Ontario. His complaint, in the form of a class proceeding, alleged that the crypto assets traded on the Coinbase platform should be classified as “securities” under the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5 and that Coinbase failed to abide by the disclosure requirements … Read More
Ontario Court Favours Place of Arbitration over Forum Selection Clause in Asset Purchase Agreement
In Tehama Group Inc v. Pythian Services Inc., 2024 ONSC 1819, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the place of an arbitration, not a forum selection clause in a contract, determines the jurisdiction that recourse against an arbitral award must be taken in. The litigants were parties to a cross-border asset purchase agreement (the “APA”). The APA included an arbitration clause for disputes regarding the calculation of the purchase price, and the parties appointed “the Toronto office” of an accounting firm as arbitrator for these disputes. The APA also included broad forum selection and governing law clauses, which required “any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of this Agreement” to be brought exclusively in the courts of New York and in accordance with its laws. A dispute arose regarding an earnout clause in the APA, and the parties proceeded to arbitration. When the Toronto-based arbitrator rendered an … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Judgments – Judgment is Enforceable Regardless of Pending Appeal
In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Acteon v. Verona Medical Group, 2023 ONSC 5140, the plaintiff was successful in obtaining the recognition of a judgment issued by a court in France, the Commercial Court of Bordeaux (the “Summary Proceeding Judgment”), albeit the ONSC stayed the plaintiff’s ability to enforce the Summary Proceeding Judgment in Ontario pending the defendants’ appeal of a related judgment (the “Merits Proceeding Judgment”) in France. The main contentious issue in this recognition proceeding was the defendants’ position that the plaintiff’s Summary Proceeding Judgment was not “final” because of the defendants’ appeal of the Merits Proceeding Judgment in France. The plaintiff’s legal expert advised the ONSC that though the Summary Proceeding Judgment was a “provisional award”, it was still “final, valid, binding and fully enforceable”. The defendants’ legal expert disagreed, positing that the Summary Proceeding Judgment was only an interim decision … Read More
Sabrina Saltmarsh Presents as Part of Panel on Enforcement of Judgments at Cross-Borders Legal Conference
Sabrina Saltmarsh presented as a Panelist at this year’s Cross-Borders legal conference held by the Ontario Bar Association on Enforcement of Judgments. The Panel discussion included: how to obtain an order granting enforcement of letters rogatory in Ontario; how letters rogatory are treated by Canadian banks; the process of obtaining recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in Ontario; and current legal issues surrounding obtaining these types of orders in Ontario. Sabrina provided insights to the audience of Canadian and American lawyers on the recent developments on the law concerning ricochet judgments and the role experts on foreign law may play in judicial proceedings pertaining to enforcement and recognition proceedings. Lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP, have experience in representing parties in cross-border litigation and disputes, including seeking to enforce Letters Rogatory and Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign Judgements in Ontario. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a free initial consultation.
Ontario Court Affirms “Generous and Liberal Approach” to the Recognition/Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In the recent decision, M1 Florida Developments Inc. v. Ameristar Development Corporation, 2021 ONSC 6883 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) granted the plaintiffs default judgment in Ontario for the registration and enforcement of a judgment that the plaintiffs obtained in the United States of America (the “Foreign Judgment”). The OSCJ advised that Canadian courts “have adopted a generous and liberal approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments”. Further, the OSCJ opined that the purpose of an action for the recognition of a foreign judgment “is to assist in enforcing an already-adjudicated dispute” and is not “to evaluate or re-litigate the underlying claim”. The OSCJ was satisfied that the foreign court “properly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute” and noted that a Canadian court “will generally recognize and enforce a foreign judgment where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction on the same basis as the domestic court would”. … Read More