Due to the integration of the global economy, Plaintiffs seeking the enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada are becoming more and more common. This is particularly true in provinces such as British Columbia, where a large number of immigrants, particularly from China, have assets that their Chinese judgment debtors are seeking to seize.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in 2003, rendered the decision of Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72 (“Beals”), which has acted as the guideline in Canadian jurisprudence for foreign judgment enforcement. In a 6-3 split, the majority in Beals confirmed that Canadian Courts should promote international comity in aid of enforcing foreign judgments.
Beals involved a judgment from the state of Florida, which, despite having a very similar system to Canada, still contained procedural law that appeared unfair to Canadian lawyers and judges. On the other hand, the mainland Chinese legal system is vastly different from any of the common law jurisdictions, particularly in terms of civil procedure.
However, in the context of Beals, the Defendants hold the burden of proof to show that the foreign judgment denied them natural justice. An application of such can be seen in the recent British Columbia case of Zeng v Zuo, 2026 BCSC 188, which dealt with the enforcement of a Chinese Judgement through a summary trial application.
The case involved the enforcement of a Chinese judgment for debts under a loan agreement. The Defendants, self-represented, claimed that they participated in the Chinese Judgment under duress and were denied natural justice.
The Plaintiff adduced expert evidence from a former judge in China, who drew analogies between the Chinese civil procedure and the British Columbia Civil procedure. The Plaintiff also provided some evidence showing that the Defendants were aware and involved in the Chinese litigation.
Ordinarily, summary trials will not be granted when there are substantial facts in dispute. However, the “comity” analysis in Beals provided a framework for the BC Supreme Court to avoid any unnecessary analysis on the Chinese legal system as a whole and focus primarily on the evidence of the Defendants’ participation in the Chinese legal process. This critical element, as it was held by the majority in Beals, is often sufficient to show that natural justice was afforded to the Defendants.
The end result was that the Chinese judgment was found to be enforceable. The Defendants made minimal efforts to argue that the Chinese procedures were unfair and, as such, were wholly unsuccessful.
This case is illustrative of the doctrine of comity and further bolsters the enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada.