Niessner v Lunemann, 2025 SKKB 13 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k9g5x>
In Niessner v Lunemann, 2025 SKKB 13, the Applicants sought to register a 2015 foreign judgment in Saskatchewan pursuant to the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, SS 2005, c E-9.12 (“EFJA”). The judgment concerned a dispute between shareholders of a Saskatchewan-based corporation.
The New Jersey Superior Court found that the Respondents had no interest in their shares, which transferred under a sham agreement. The Respondents exhausted all appeal routes in New Jersey.
Justice Gerecke of the Saskatchewan King’s Bench granted the Application to register the judgment with costs to the Applicants.
On the Application, the Respondents argued that the New Jersey judgment 1) lacked jurisdiction, 2) was obtained by fraud, 3) offended public policy, 4) included unenforceable declaratory relief and 5) violated Saskatchewan law. Since the Respondents filed no evidence to explain how particular portions of the judgment offend Saskatchewan law, His Honour dismissed this fifth argument as a “pointless distraction.”
His Honour held that since the Respondents attorned to New Jersey jurisdiction expressly, by their voluntary appearance and counterclaim, the Applicants had satisfied Saskatchewan’s Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act (“EFJA”). A real and substantial connection need not be separately established.
Justice Gerecke addressed the fraud and public policy defences together, and noted the power to reject enforcement by public policy is directed at repugnant laws, not “repugnant findings of fact.” The same fraud arguments were decided in New Jersey. Those findings stand.
And finally, the declaratory relief did not prevent enforcement. The EFJA allows enforcement of non-monetary judgments. Nonetheless, the declarations were not “standalone” but supported the Court’s determination of damages.