Morguard Inv. Ltd. v. De Savoye (1990), 122 N.R. 81 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Douglas De Savoye (appellant) v. Morguard Investments Limited and Credit Foncier Trust Company (respondents)
(21116)
Indexed As: Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
December 20, 1990.
Summary:
The defendant acquired mortgaged land in Alberta while he was a resident of that province. After he moved to British Columbia the mortgagees foreclosed and obtained deficiency judgments against the defendant in Alberta after he was served with notice of the proceedings, but did not respond. The mortgagees brought actions in British Columbia to enforce the judgments.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [1988] 1 W.W.R. 87; 18 B.C.L.R.(2d) 262, allowed the actions. The defendant appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported [1988] 5 W.W.R 650; 27 B.C.L.R.(2d) 155; 29 C.P.C.(2d) 52, dismissed the appeal. The defendant appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and held that such a judgment in personam was enforceable in British Columbia against the defendant.
Conflict of Laws – Topic 6605
Foreign judgments – General – Recognition of judgments of another province – The defendant acquired mortgaged land in Alberta while a resident of that province – After he moved to British Columbia the mortgagees foreclosed and obtained deficiency judgments against the defendant in Alberta – He was served with the proceedings, but did not respond – The Supreme Court of Canada held that such a judgment in personam was enforceable in British Columbia against the defendant – The court extensively discussed the notion of comity internationally and interprovincially and stated that as a matter of policy in a federal state like Canada such judgments should be enforceable interprovincially.
Constitutional Law – Topic 7
General – General principles – Comity and private international law interprovincially – [See Conflict of Laws – Topic 6605].
Courts – Topic 103
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – American decisions – The Supreme Court of Canada adopted the idea of comity stated by the U.S. Supreme Court and considered other American precedents in determining the enforceability of judgments interprovincially.
Mortgages – Topic 8056
Statutory and contractual rights – Deficiency judgments – Enforcement – Recognition of judgments of another province – [See Conflict of Laws – Topic 6605].
Practice – Topic 5929
Judgments and orders – Enforcement of foreign judgments – In personam judgments – [See Conflict of Laws – Topic 6605].
Practice – Topic 5931
Judgments and orders – Enforcement of foreign judgments – Registration – General – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the foreign judgment registration procedure under the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 75, was not intended to alter rules of private international law and did not bar an action to enforce a foreign judgment – See paragraph 56.
Cases Noticed:
Comber v. Leyland, [1898] A.C. 524 (H.L.), consd. [para. 7].
Travers v. Holley, [1953] 2 All E.R. 794, consd. [paras. 8, 18].
Emanuel v. Symon, [1908] 1 K.B. 302 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 9, 14].
Feigelman v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; 56 N.R. 241; 32 Man.R.(2d) 241, consd. [paras. 10, 40].
Marcotte v. Megson (1987), 19 B.C.L.R.(2d) 300, folld. [paras. 11, 24].
Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, [1894] A.C. 670 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 14].
Becquet v. MacCarthy (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 951; 109 E.R. 1396, consd. [para. 17].
Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870), L.R. 6 Q.B. 155, consd. [para. 17].
Dulles’ Settlement Trusts, Re, [1951] 2 All E.R. 69 (C.A.), consd. [para. 19].
Harris v. Taylor, [1915] 2 K.B. 580 (C.A.), consd. [para. 19].
In re Trepca Mines Ltd., [1960] 1 W.L.R. 1273 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].
Schemmer v. Property Resources Ltd., [1975] 1 Ch. 273, refd to. [para. 20].
Indyka v. Indyka, [1969] 1 A.C. 33, consd. [paras. 21, 27, 45].
New York v. Fitzgerald, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 458 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 21, 22].
Lung v. Lee (1928), 63 O.L.R. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
Walsh v. Herman (1908), 13 B.C.R. 314 (B.C.C.A.), overruled [para. 22].
Marshall v. Houghton, [1923] 2 W.W.R. 553 (Man. C.A.), overruled [para. 22].
Mattar v. Public Trustee (1952), 5 W.W.R.(N.S.) 29 (Alta. C.A.), overruled [para. 22].
Wedlay v. Quist (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 21 (Alta. C.A.), overruled [para. 22].
Bank of Bermuda Ltd. v. Stutz, [1965] 2 O.R. 121 (H.C.), overruled [para. 22].
Traders Group Ltd. v. Hopkins (1968), 69 D.L.R.(2d) 250 (N.W.T. Terr. C.), overruled [para. 22].
Batavia Times Publishing Co. v. Davis (1977), 82 D.L.R.(3d) 247 (Ont. H.C.), affd. 105 D.L.R.(3d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), overruled [para. 22].
Eggleton v. Broadway Agencies Ltd. (1981), 32 A.R. 61 (Q.B.), overruled [para. 22].
Weiner v. Singh (1981), 22 C.P.C. 230 (B.C.C.C.), overruled [para. 22].
Whalen v. Neal (1982), 40 N.B.R.(2d) 457; 105 A.P.R. 457; 31 C.P.C. 1 (Q.B.), overruled [para. 22].
North American Specialty Pipe Ltd. v. Magnum Sales Ltd. (1985), 31 A.C.W.S.(2d) 320, overruled [para. 22].
Edward v. Edward Estate, [1987], 5 W.W.R. 289; 57 Sask.R. 67, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 28].
Hilton v. Guyot (1895), 159 U.S. 113, appld. [para. 31].
R. v. Spencer, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278; 62 N.R. 81; 11 O.A.C. 207, appld. [para. 31].
R. v. Zingre, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272, appld. [para. 31].
Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon (1812), 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, appld. [para. 31].
The Atlantic Star, [1973] 2 All E.R. 175 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].
Wismer and Javelin International Ltd., Re (1982), 136 D.L.R.(3d) 647 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
Mulroney and Coates, Re (1986), 27 D.L.R.(4th) 118 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
Touche Ross Ltd. v. Sorrel Resources Ltd. (1987), 11 B.C.L.R.(2d) 184 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
Roglass Consultants Inc. v. Kennedy, Lock (1984), 65 B.C.L.R. 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Black & Company v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Interprovincial Co-Operatives Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 477; 4 N.R. 231, refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 36].
Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, consd. [para. 46].
Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 49].
Dupont v. Taronga Holdings Ltd. [1987] R.J.Q. 124; (1986), 49 D.L.R.(4th) 335 (Que. S. C.), consd. [para. 52].
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, refd to. [para. 52].
First City Capital Ltd. v. Winchester Computer Corp., [1987] 6 W.W.R. 212; 61 Sask.R. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 6, sect. 7.
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(2), sect. 91(29), sect. 92(10), sect. 121.
Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (E.E.C. 1968) [para. 38].
Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 75, sect. 31(6), sect. 40 [para. 55].
Rules of the Supreme Court (Eng.), order 11 [para. 19].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Black, Vaughan, Enforcement of Judgments and Judicial Jurisdiction in Canada (1989), 9 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 547 [para. 26].
Blom, Joost, Conflict of Laws — Enforcement of Extraprovincial Default Judgment — Reciprocity of Jurisdiction: Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 359 [para. 42].
Castel, J.-G., Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Personam and in Rem in the Common Law Provinces of Canada (1971), 17 McGill L.J. 11 [paras. 11, 23].
Edinger, Elizabeth, Discretion in the Assumption and Exercise of Jurisdiction in British Columbia (1982), 16 U.B.C. L. Rev. 1 [para. 54].
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 278-280 [paras. 26, 39, 52].
Kennedy, Gilbert D., Recognition of Judgments in Personam: The Meaning of Reciprocity (1957), 35 Can. Bar Rev. 123 [paras. 11, 23].
Kennedy, Gilbert D., ‘Reciprocity’ in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: The Implications of Travers v. Holley (1954), 32 Can. Bar Rev. 359 [paras. 11, 23].
Sharpe, Robert J., “The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, in M.A. Springman and Eric Gertner, eds., Debtor-Creditor Law: Practice and Doctrine (1985) [para. 16].
Sharpe, Robert J., Interprovincial Product Liability Litigation (1982) [paras. 26, 49].
Springman and Gertner (eds.), Debtor-Creditor Law: Practice and Doctrine, pp. 641 [para. 16]; 691 et seq. [para. 26].
Swan, John, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A Statement of Principle, in M.A. Springman and Eric Gertner, eds., Debtor-Creditor Law: Practice and Doctrine (1985) [para. 26].
Swan, John, The Canadian Constitution, Federalism and the Conflict of Laws (1985), 63 Can. Bar Rev. 271 [para. 26].
Von Mehren, Arthur T., and Donald T. Trautman, Recognition of Foreign Adjudications: A Survey and A Suggested Approach (1968), 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1601 [para. 31].
Yntema, Hessel E., The Objectives of Private International Law (1957), 35 Can. Bar Rev. 721 [para. 32].
Counsel:
Donald J. Livingstone, for the appellant, defendant;
Peter Reardon, for the respondents, plaintiffs.
Solicitors of Record:
Croft & Bjurman, North Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Lawrence & Shaw, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents.
This case was heard on April 23, 1990, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 20, 1990, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.
