This was a straightforward enforcement case where the notice requirements from the originating court did not meet the standards of the enforcing court.
A Chinese court ordered default judgement against Mr. Yang, which the plaintiff sought to enforce in Canada. Mr. Yang claimed he was unaware of the Chinese legal proceedings until after judgement and disputed the judgment on grounds of improper service.
The court examined the plaintiff’s attempts to serve Mr. Yang in China, which included sending documents to outdated addresses, email and text service, and a public notice in a Chinese newspaper, which satisfied the Chinese court. However, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that Mr. Yang received any of these notices, demonstrating the difficulty of proving another party’s notice. Mr. Yang testified that he had not received the documents, there was no proof of the text or email receipts, and the published notice did not mean that Mr. Yang had seen it.
Canadian courts require that foreign judgments meet specific standards of fairness, including adequate notice to the defendant. While foreign legal systems may allow service by publication, Canadian standards demand more than just compliance with foreign procedures. In this case, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s service attempts were inadequate because there was no clear evidence that Mr. Yang was properly notified or had an opportunity to defend himself. As a result, the court ruled that enforcing the Chinese judgment would violate Mr. Yang’s right to natural justice.
The lesson of this case is that Canadian courts will look at the facts behind a foreign court’s determination that adequate notice was given.