• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Vancouver BC Litigation Lawyers: Hobbs Giroday

Header Right

Call us today: (604) 669-6609  Toll free: 1 (844) 568-1004

  • About
    • Vision & Values
    • Fee Arrangements
    • Organizational Memberships
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Solutions
      • Probate
      • Validity of Wills
      • Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”)
      • Trust Litigation
      • Articles
    • Negligence
      • Professional Negligence
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Dental Malpractice
      • Personal Injury
      • Products Liability
      • Articles
    • Business Law
      • Contractual Disputes
      • Enforcement of Judgments
      • Debt Collection
      • Shareholder Disputes
      • Securities Litigation
      • Construction
  • Our Team
    • David Hobbs
    • Ian Giroday
    • Berta Lopera
    • Dylan Segal
    • Austin DeBrincat
    • Danielle Carman
    • Lauryn Wray
  • Resources
    • All Articles
    • FAQ Videos
    • Podcasts
    • Publications
      • Legal Articles
      • Case Comments
      • Reported Cases
      • Business Law Resources
    • Media
    • Speaking Engagements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • About
    • Vision & Values
    • Fee Arrangements
    • Organizational Memberships
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Solutions
      • Probate
      • Validity of Wills
      • Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”)
      • Trust Litigation
      • Articles
    • Negligence
      • Professional Negligence
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Dental Malpractice
      • Personal Injury
      • Products Liability
      • Articles
    • Business Law
      • Contractual Disputes
      • Enforcement of Judgments
      • Debt Collection
      • Shareholder Disputes
      • Securities Litigation
      • Construction
  • Our Team
    • David Hobbs
    • Ian Giroday
    • Berta Lopera
    • Dylan Segal
    • Austin DeBrincat
    • Danielle Carman
    • Lauryn Wray
  • Resources
    • All Articles
    • FAQ Videos
    • Podcasts
    • Publications
      • Legal Articles
      • Case Comments
      • Reported Cases
      • Business Law Resources
    • Media
    • Speaking Engagements
  • Careers
  • Contact

Beals v. Sandanha 2003 SCC 72

Beals v. Saldanha
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 416

The appellants, residents of Ontario, sold a vacant lot situated in Florida to the respondents. A dispute arose as a result of that transaction and in 1986 the respondents sued the appellants and two other defendants in Florida. A defence was filed but the appellants chose not to defend any of the subsequent amendments to the action. Pursuant to Florida law, the failure to defend the amendments had the effect of not defending the action. The appellants were subsequently noted in default and were served with notice of a jury trial to establish damages. They did not respond to the notice nor did they attend the trial. The jury awarded the respondents US$210,000 in compensatory damages and US$50,000 in punitive damages. Upon receipt of the notice of the monetary judgment against them, the appellants sought legal advice. They were advised by an Ontario lawyer that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in Ontario. Relying on this advice, the appellants took no steps to have the judgment set aside or to appeal the judgment in Florida. The damages were not paid and an action was started in Ontario to enforce the Florida judgment. By the time of the hearing in 1998, the foreign judgment with interest had grown to approximately C$800,000. The trial judge dismissed the action for enforcement primarily on the ground that there had been fraud in relation to the assessment of damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal.

Held (Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. The judgment of the Florida court should be enforced.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Arbour and Deschamps JJ.: International comity and the prevalence of international cross-border transactions and movement call for a modernization of private international law. Subject to the legislatures adopting a different approach, the “real and substantial connection” test, which has until now only been applied to interprovincial judgments, should apply equally to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The test requires that a significant connection exist between the cause of action and the foreign court. Here, the “real and substantial connection” test is made out. The appellants entered into a property transaction in Florida when they bought and sold land. As such, there [page418] exists both a real and substantial connection between the Florida jurisdiction, the subject matter of the action and the defendants. Since the Florida court properly took jurisdiction, its judgment must be recognized and enforced by a domestic court provided that no defences bar its enforcement.

To read the full judgement please click here.

Category: Director's Liability & Shareholder Litigation Cases & Summaries

Previous Post: « Ferrara v. Cridland
Next Post: Supreme Court of Canada – Oppression Ruling »

Primary Sidebar

Request a Free Consultation

BC Probate Calculator

Latest Articles

  • Estate planning. Do it while you can!
  • Estate Planning Opportunities
  • Dental Malpractice: We Know the Drill
  • A Notice to All Couriers, Servers, and Suppliers
  • We Are Here If You Need Assistance
  • Lessons for Contractors and Small Business Owners During a Downturn
  • Steps we’re taking regarding COVID-19
  • ‘Notice of Proposed Application in Relation to Estate’ – What’s that!?!?

Footer

Site Footer

© 2019 Hobbs | Giroday · All Rights Reserved ·