Law Commons^™

Enforcing Foreign Summary/Default Judgments: The Damoclean Sword Hanging Over Pro Se Canadian Corporate Defendants? Case Comment On U.S.A. V. Shield Development, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

Following the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Beals v. Saldanha, where the “real and substantial connection” test is otherwise met (i.e. consent-based jurisdiction, presence-based jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction) the only available defences to a domestic defendant seeking to have a Canadian court refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment are fraud, public policy and natural justice. The 2005 Ontario decision in United States of America v. Shield Development Co., presents an opportunity to critically analyze the defence of natural justice through a juxtaposition of American and Canadian procedural law. The thesis is that procedural justice mandates that “form follow …

“Thinking Globally, Acting Locally”: Recent Trends In The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Canada, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

The continuing evolution of the “real and substantial connection” test for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments remains a topic of immediate interest. Since the landmark decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, and more recently in Beals v. Saldanha, Canadian jurisprudence for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been dominated by judicial and legislative unilateralism: the establishment of a domestically imposed standard (the lex fori) striving towards national uniformity informed by private international law (or conflict of laws) principles. While the “real and substantial connection” test for jurisdiction simpliciter provides a flexible analytical framework for …

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The Due Process Clause with its focus on a defendant's liberty interest has become the key, if not only, limitation on a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. This due process jurisdictional limitation is universally assumed to apply with equal force to alien defendants as to domestic defendants. With few exceptions, scholars do not distinguish between the two. Neither do the courts. Countless cases assume that foreigners have all the rights of United States citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction.

But is this assumption sound? This Article explores the uncritical assumption that the same due process considerations apply …