Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies “Carrying on Business” Standard for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In our increasingly globalized world where businesses can easily operate virtually, the question of whether a company is “carrying on business” in Canada can be difficult to answer. The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered this issue in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments, and declined an invitation to make it easier for foreign creditors to seize assets in Canada to satisfy debts incurred outside of Canada. In H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Antigua and Barbuda, the Supreme Court held that to be “carrying on business” in a jurisdiction requires some kind of actual presence, whether direct or indirect. A physical presence in the form of maintenance of physical premises will be compelling, and a virtual presence that falls short of an actual presence will not suffice.
Background
H.M.B. Holdings concerned efforts by a creditor to enforce in Ontario a multi-million dollar foreign judgment against the Antiguan government it received in May 2014. The foreign judgment resulted from an expropriation by the Antiguan government of a resort property in Antigua owned by H.M.B. Holdings Limited.
In October 2016, H.M.B. Holdings Limited brought a proceeding to enforce the foreign judgment in B.C., even though the Antiguan government did not have any property or assets there nor any physical presence. The only connection to B.C. was that the Antiguan government had contracts with four businesses in B.C. that were to be paid a finder’s fee to direct applicants to a program of the Antiguan government that effectively granted citizenship to investors in exchange for making a monetary investment in Antigua under its Citizenship by Investment Program (CIP).
B.C.’s Limitation Act provides for a ten-year limitation period to enforce a foreign judgment, while Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 provides for a much shorter two-year limitation period. In this way, the enforcement proceeding in B.C. was not time-barred, but would have been time-barred had it been brought in Ontario. The Antiguan government did not resist having the Antiguan judgment enforced in B.C., and a B.C. default judgment was issued in 2017.
Decisions Below
Supreme Court of Canada Decision
The Supreme Court held that to determine under the REJA whether a defendant is carrying on business in a jurisdiction requires a fact-based inquiry into whether it has some direct or indirect presence in the jurisdiction, accompanied by a degree of business activity that is sustained for a period of time. Some kind of actual presence, whether direct or indirect, is required. A physical presence in the form of maintenance of physical premises will be compelling, and a virtual presence that falls short of an actual presence will not suffice. The Supreme Court also directed courts when analyzing this issue to consider various non-exhaustive indicia, including:
- whether or not the fixed place of business from which the representative operates was originally acquired to enable them to act on behalf of the foreign corporation;
- whether the foreign corporation has directly reimbursed the representative for the cost of their accommodation at the fixed place of business and the cost of their staff;
- what other contributions, if any, the foreign corporation makes to the financing of the business carried on by the representative;
- how the representative is remunerated;
- what degree of control the foreign corporation exercises over the running of the business conducted by the representative;
- whether, and if so how, the representative displays the foreign corporation’s name at their premises or on their stationery;
- what business, if any, the representative transacts as principal exclusively on their own behalf; and
- whether the representative makes contracts with customers or other third parties in the name of the foreign corporation or otherwise in such manner as to bind it.
The Supreme Court did not disturb the findings of fact below that Antigua was not carrying on business in B.C. In the result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The majority of the Supreme Court declined to answer the question of whether a derivative judgment can be enforced under the REJA. It left that question to be resolved in future litigation (although, notably, Côté J. in a concurring opinion indicated she would have held that derivative judgments can be enforced under the REJA).
Concluding Remarks
While the decision in H.M.B. Holdings shows there are limits on what can properly be considered “carrying on business” in Canada for purposes of enforcing foreign judgments, that determination is very fact specific.
For more information concerning H.M.B. Holdings or issues involving enforcement of foreign judgments or carrying on business in Canada, please contact any member of our Dispute Resolution Group.
Authors
Insights
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
No “Magic Words” Required: Supreme Court of Canada Holds Exclusion Clauses Released Seller From Implied Statutory Conditions
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, which clarifies how contractual exclusion clauses are to… -
Capital Markets
Public Safety Canada Releases Updated Guidance on Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to… -
Crisis Management and Urgent Proceedings
Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024 - Canada Chapter
Mark Dunn and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024. Through a series of interviews with expert legal… -
Capital Markets
Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations for Canadian Entities Effective January 1, 2024
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain companies and… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Director Duties and Climate Change
Decisions earlier this year from the English courts in ClientEarth v Shell Plc et al., and the recent appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, shed light on climate change issues… -
Intellectual Property
Canadian Intellectual Property Office Increases Fees Effective January 1, 2024
As of January 1, 2024, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) will be increasing most of its fees by 25%. Filing fees, renewal fees, opposition filing fees, as well as fees for initiating…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Shareholder Activism
Browning West achieves landmark victory in Gildan Activewear proxy campaign
Goodmans LLP acted for Browning West, LP in the successful reconstitution of Gildan Activewear’s entire board, culminating in the reinstatement of CEO Glenn Chamandy… -
Capital Markets
Dye & Durham’s defence of requisition from Engine Capital
Goodmans LLP is acting for the board of Dye & Durham in connection with a defence of requisition from Engine Capital… -
Capital Markets
Board of WonderFi Technologies Inc.’s proxy defense from KAOS Capital and Mogo
Goodmans LLP is acting for the special committee of the board of WonderFi Technologies Inc in connection with its defense of a proxy contest launched by KAOS Capital and MOGO. KAOS Capital is a… -
Restructuring
LoyaltyOne cross-border restructuring
Goodmans LLP is counsel to KSV Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as court-appointed monitor of LoyaltyOne, Co. in its restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act before… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Coinsquare, WonderFi and CoinSmart close business combination
Goodmans LLP acted for Coinsquare Ltd. in its business combination transaction with WonderFi Technologies Inc. and CoinSmart Financial Inc…
News & Events
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Welcomes Julia Martschenko
Goodmans is pleased to announce Julia Martschenko has joined the firm as an associate in the Dispute Resolution Group. Julia will be a terrific addition to our firm.We warmly welcome Julia to… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Awarded at the 2024 Benchmark Canada Awards
For the second time in as many months, Goodmans Intellectual Property Group has won multiple awards. We are delighted to share Goodmans has been honoured with two distinguished awards at the… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Recognized in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation Canada
We are proud to announce that we have once again been recognized in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation Canada.16 Goodmans lawyers have been recognized as being the country’s most…