In Kaveh v Kaveh Semnani 2019 ONSC 996, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to determine whether the Maryland Court had jurisdiction and if the judgment could be recognized and enforced in Ontario.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant owed him money and the Defendant argued that the Maryland Court did not have proper jurisdiction to hear the case. The Defendants did not defend the case before the Maryland Court and a default judgment was granted in their absence. Subsequently, the Plaintiff sought to have the Maryland judgment recognized in Ontario.
Real and substantial connection test
The Court applied the ‘real and substantial connection test’ which functions only to test whether the Maryland Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the matter. The Ontario Court did not consider the facts of the original matter before the Maryland Court, except to consider if the facts would relate to any potential defence to recognizing the foreign judgment.
The Plaintiff’s arguments:
- Neither of the parties were resident in Iran, with the Plaintiff residing in Maryland where the action was raised;
- No agreements between the parties occurred in Iran; and
- The source of the funds sent to the Defendant did not come from Iran, they came from the Plaintiff’s bank account in Maryland where the action was raised.
The Defendant’s arguments:
- The assets at the centre of the dispute were located in Iran;
- The Defendant resided in Ontario, therefore the correct jurisdiction was Ontario, not Maryland; and
- Communications between the parties were received in Ontario and funds requested were to be sent to an Ontario bank account.
The Court held:
- No agreements made between parties occurred in Iran;
- The practicality for the Defendant to defend an action in Iran was less realistic than defending the action in Maryland;
- The Plaintiff resided in Maryland; and
- The funds were sent from Maryland.
For the above reasons, the Court was satisfied that the Maryland Court met the real and substantial connection test and that there were no applicable defences proven; the Court recognized the judgement, enforceable against the Defendant in Ontario.
How Gilbertson Davis LLP Can Help You
If you require legal advice and representation in respect to the enforcement of a foreign judgment, please contact us for an initial consultation.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
