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
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Common law enforceability of ricochet judgments: The ONCA decision in HMB Holdings v Antigua

By Chloe Snider, Laurie Livingstone, and Camila Maldi
October 26, 2022
  • Commercial Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In September 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (ONCA) released an important decision regarding the enforceability of “ricochet” judgments at common law, HMB Holdings Ltd. v. Antigua and Barbuda.[1] The enforceability of ricochet judgments refers to the enforceability of a judgment from another jurisdiction, which itself enforces ajudgment from yet another jurisdiction.

This same case had previously made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on the related issue of whether this type of judgment could be registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (Ontario) (REJA). That statute permits the registration and enforcement of judgments between Canadian provinces. In the prior proceeding, the SCC upheld the lower court rulings refusing registration under the REJA.[2] This new ONCA decision arises out of a plaintiff’s second attempt to get the same British Columbia judgment recognized in Ontario, this time under the common law.

Key takeaway

There is no common law basis for seeking the recognition and enforcement of judgments from other provinces that are themselves enforcing foreign judgments (ricochet judgments). A party seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in more than one province should pursue recognition and enforcement of the underlying foreign judgment in each province where it seeks to enforce against assets.

Background: Initial judgment and recognition in British Columbia

In May 2014, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council granted judgment in favour of HMB Holding Ltd. (HMB) against Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua) to compensate HMB for the expropriation of a beachfront property in 2007 (the Privy Council Judgment).[3]

HMB sought to enforce the Privy Council Judgment in Canada more than two years after it was issued. In October 2016, HMB brought a common law action to enforce the Privy Council Judgment in British Columbia. Antigua did not defend the action or attorn to British Columbia, and HMB obtained default judgment in 2017 (the BC Judgment). HMB was able to proceed in British Columbia in 2016 because the 10-year applicable limitation period under British Columbia’s Limitation Act had not yet expired. By contrast, under Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002, the two-year applicable limitation period had expired in May 2016, thereby limiting HMB’s ability to enforce the Privy Council Judgment directly in Ontario.

Enforcement efforts in Ontario

HMB brought an application to register the BC Judgment in Ontario pursuant to the REJA[4]. That application was unsuccessful, as were both of HMB’s appeals to the ONCA and SCC.

In May 2019, HMB commenced a separate action seeking to recognize and enforce the BC Judgment in Ontario pursuant to common law. Antigua brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action. The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that there was no substantial connection between BC and the underlying action in Antigua.

The ONCA affirmed the motion judge’s decision and concluded that the action should be dismissed, but for different reasons. According to the ONCA, the underlying principle is really whether the court has the legal authority to recognize and enforce ricochet judgments between Canadian jurisdictions at common law. The ONCA recognized that there are a handful of cases where Canadian courts have permitted ricochet judgments but that those cases do not directly address the court’s legal authority for doing so at common law. The ONCA’s answer to this question was that Canadian courts do not have this authority at common law.

The ONCA held that “[w]hile comity requires respect for the jurisdiction that granted the original judgment, the concern over comity does not arise in the same way with respect to recognition and enforcement judgments.” The ONCA further found that approaching  ricochet judgments as original judgments would deprive defendants of valid defences that could have been raised if the recognition and enforcement were originally sought in Ontario. In this particular case, when HMB sought enforcement of the Privy Council Judgment, the limitation period had expired in Ontario but not in British Columbia. Recognizing the BC Judgment in Ontario would, therefore, deprive Antigua of a limitations defence that would have been available if enforcement of the Privy Council Judgment had been directly commenced in Ontario.

Finally, the ONCA noted that it would be up to the Ontario Court to decide whether limitations or other defences would apply if HMB were to pursue direct recognition and enforcement of the Privy Council Judgment in Ontario. It made no finding regarding whether those defences would apply but confirmed that denying Antigua the opportunity to assert those defences by backdoor enforcement of the Privy Council Judgment by recognizing the BC Judgment was not appropriate. The more appropriate process would be to seek recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment in each province individually under the laws and procedures of that province.

Conclusion

In this decision, the ONCA has provided helpful guidance and much-needed clarity regarding how the courts will treat ricochet judgments. This is an important decision to consider when crafting a strategy for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Canada. It also serves as a reminder not to delay when a judgment may require enforcement in a foreign country.


For more information, please reach out to the authors, Chloe Snider, Laurie Livingstone and Camila Maldi


[1] 2022 ONCA 630.

[2] See our previous blog on that case here: https://www.commerciallitigationblog.com/hmb-holdings-v-antigua-supreme-court-grants-leave-in-case-that-will-impact-foreign-judgment-enforcement/

[3] The Attorney General (Appellant) v HMB Holdings Limited (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda), [2014] UKPC 5, online: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2014/5.html

[4] Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.5

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
Chloe Snider

About Chloe Snider

Chloe Snider is a partner in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Transformative Technologies groups. Her practice focuses on litigating complex commercial disputes and assisting clients manage risk. She is a strategic and critical legal thinker who works efficiently to develop practical solutions for her clients.

All posts Full bio

Laurie Livingstone

About Laurie Livingstone

Laurie Livingstone (She/Her/Hers) is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Insurance groups at Dentons. Her practice focuses on administrative law, appellate advocacy, and complex commercial litigation.

All posts Full bio

Camila Maldi

About Camila Maldi

Camila Maldi (She/Her/Hers) is an associate in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution and Competition and Antitrust groups at Dentons.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Commercial Litigation

Beware of secret trusts – BC Court of Appeal upholds deathbed trust

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the principle of secret trusts is alive and well – […]

By Emma Irving
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Judicial Review

Words, words, words … are not enough to constitute reasons. The Alberta Court of Appeal puts administrative decision makers on notice in recent judicial review case

By Laurie Livingstone and David Konkin
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

For better or worse, the interpretation of contracts is still a thing!

For better or worse, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Sattva decision (Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC […]

By Steven Latos and Josh Dial

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media
  • White Collar Crime
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

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