In many jurisdictions including all
of Canada, courts will not enforce foreign judgments that are shown to be penal
in character. In Dingwall v Foster, [2012] A.J. No. 817 the Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench recently considered whether a
Nevada judgment for damages issued after
the defendant’s defence had been struck as a discovery sanction is penal and
thus unenforceable. The defendant had
defied a court order to attend the discovery.
However, the damages were calculated based on the causes of action for
which the plaintiff had sued, namely breach of
fiduciary duties, conversion, and others.
The defendant had argued that the
damage award was analogous to the American contempt order in Pro Swing v Elta Golf [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612 which the Supreme Court of
Canada found was penal and thus unenforceable.
In Pro Swing, a trademark infringement case, a previous order had
enjoined the defendant from selling certain golf equipment. Because the defendant continued selling the
equipment, the American court issued a contempt order which required the
defendant to, among other things, account for the revenues it received from
those sales.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench distinguished the Pro Swing contempt
order on the grounds that it required Elta to account for activities it
undertook (sales of equipment) in violation of the earlier court order. By contrast, in Dingwall, the judgment to be enforced did not award damages arising
directly from the defendant’s disobedience of a court order (i.e. the failure
to obey an order to attend discovery). The damages were based on the original
causes of action. The Court commented
that the judgment was indistinguishable from a default judgment arising from a
failure to defend, and that it would be paradoxical to enforce the latter (as
the law does) but not the former.
With respect, the Court
overstates the difference with the Pro
Swing order, and understates the difference with the default judgment. In Pro
Swing, presumably the original claim included a claim for an accounting for
sales that would have covered the same sales covered by the contempt
order. In other words, an judgment for an accounting for those sales might well
have been issued even if there had been no contempt. The contempt order for an accounting thus can
reasonably be said to be based on the original cause of action. In Pro
Swing, the Supreme Court stated that contempt orders, either for civil or
criminal contempt, will be considered penal and thus unenforceable. The reasons in Dingwall do not specify whether the second court order was worded as a
contempt order, but the Nevada court
referred to it as an order for sanctions, and it was issued after the defendant
had violated a court order to attend discovery.
As for a default judgment issued
upon a defendant’s failure to defend an action, such a judgment is issued, not
to punish anyone, but instead because the defendant, having failed to defend, is
deemed to have admitted that the plaintiff’s allegations are true. In Foster,
by contrast, the judgment flowed from a penalty, namely the loss of the defendant’s opportunity
to defend either liability or the quantum of damages claimed. Although the judgment does not impose a fine
separate and distinct from the damages for breach of fiduciary duties etc., the
amount of those damages are quite possibly higher than if the defendant had
been permitted to defend liability or the quantum of damages claimed. Indeed the judgment in Dingwall
illustrates the point perfectly: it included $45,000,000 in punitive damages
which on appeal in Nevada were struck out, as were $15,000,000 of general damages. It is not hard to
imagine that damages may have been lower still if the defendant had had an opportunity,
at trial, to defend on liability or quantum of damages.
In conclusion, with respect, the
decision in Dingwall is inconsistent with Pro Swing, and it
construes too narrowly what judgments should be considered penal and thus
unenforceable.
No comments:
Post a Comment