Foreign Judgments - Common Law 1996

IV. Conclusion

[99]  We think the possibility of a uniform act on the enforcement of foreign judgments is well worth pursuing. Ultimately, the decision for or against such a statute depends on, first, how seriously the current common law rules are seen as deficient and, second, how far Canada's participation in internationally negotiated regimes (such as a future Hague Convention on the enforcement of judgments) may push Canada's jurisdictions into modifying the existing law in any event. We have highlighed some of the policy choices and drafting difficulties that a uniform ct would involve, but we can see no reason why, as far as the common law jurisdictions are concerned, a uniform act should not be feasible.

[100]  We attach, as an Appendix to this paper, a draft statute. We emphasize that this is a very rough draft, whose purpose is to highlight the main issues and the choices that we have discussed in this paper. Where we could we have used terminology consistent with that in the Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, but the structure has had to be quite different. We also emphasize that discussion at the ULCC meeting should centre on the issues as raised in the text of this paper, not on the provisions of the draft statute. There are difficult and controversial points that the draft statute either takes sides on, or glosses over. The draft statute is to give a general idea of what a statute could look like. We include it only because we were asked to do so. Those who work towards a proper draft statute after this meeting will in effect be starting from scratch, because many issues will have been resolved at the meeting in a way that is inconsistent with the attached draft.

Next Annual Meeting

2020 Annual Meeting

Place to be Announced

August 9 – 13, 2020