Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Application of the appropriate means test in an action to enforce a foreign judgment

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
March 6, 2019
  • Discoverability
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Grayson Consulting Inc v Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79, the Court of Appeal considered when a proceeding would be an “appropriate means to remedy a loss” in the context of a claim commenced to enforce a foreign judgment where a Mareva injunction had also been granted.

Grayson obtained default judgment against the respondent in South Carolina on August 20, 2014 (“SC Judgment”). While certain appeals were taken against certain other defendants in the initial action (final appellate decision took effect on March 29, 2016) no appeal was taken from the SC Judgment. In December 2017, Grayson commenced proceedings in Ontario in respect of the SC Default Judgment and also obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendant. The defendant successfully brought a motion to set aside the Mareva injunction, wherein it was held that the action to enforce the SC Judgment was commenced outside the time period prescribed by the Limitations Act, 2002. 

Grayson appealed. It claimed that the motions judge made two errors in setting aside the Mareva injunction: (1) he incorrectly held that the limitation period for an action to enforce the default judgment began to run once the appeal period had expired; and (2) he erred in holding that Grayson ought to have known that Lloyd had exigible assets in Ontario as of the date of the SC Default Judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It clarified that reference to whether proceedings “have run their course” was made in respect of the status of the foreign proceedings as between the foreign judgment creditor and the foreign judgment debtor, not as between the foreign judgment creditor and any other party to the foreign litigation. Thus, the fact that an appeal by others who were also parties to the South Carolina litigation that the defendant was involved in proceeded after the issuance of the SC Judgment was inconsequential to the commencement of the limitation period. Accordingly, because neither Grayson nor Lloyd appealed the SC Judgment, the time under the Limitations Act, 2002 began to run upon the expiry of this 30-day appeal period.

With respect to the second ground, the Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge – that Grayson was in possession of enough information about the defendant’s real and substantial connection to Ontario that it ought to have taken investigatory steps once the SC Judgment became final, or shortly thereafter. Indeed, Grayson knew that Lloyd lived and worked in Ontario. The Court held that “one would expect a reasonable judgment creditor to take prompt steps to enforce a judgment in the jurisdiction where the judgment debtor resides when the time to appeal the foreign judgment expires or, if an appeal is taken, when the appeal is decided.” Accordingly, when the 30-day period to appeal the SC Judgment expired, a proceeding to enforce the judgment in Ontario was an “appropriate means” to remedy Grayson’s loss pursuant to s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002. Since the enforcement proceeding was statute-barred it was appropriate for the Mareva injunction to be set aside on the basis that Grayson had failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

Co-authored by Stuart Ruffolo

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Dentons Limitations Law Group

About Dentons Limitations Law Group

The Limitations Law Blog contains summaries of the latest developments arising from appellate and lower court decisions on limitations law in Ontario and on recent limitations law developments in Ontario.

All posts

RELATED POSTS

  • Discoverability
  • Motions to Strike

Court of Appeal continues to discourage motions to strike brought under r. 21.01(1)(a) on a limitation issue, except in narrow circumstances

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability
  • Misnomer

Ontario Superior Court of Justice Summarizes Principles of Misnomer and Discoverability

By Ara Basmadjian
  • Acknowledgement
  • Discoverability

Emails can satisfy the acknowledgement requirement and Forbearance can postpone discoverability of a claim

By Dentons Limitations Law Group

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site