Case information

Private international law - Foreign judgments - Enforcement - Jurisdiction of foreign authorities - Did the Appellant submit to the jurisdiction of the Utah Court under article 3168(6) of the Civil Code of Quebec by allegedly raising non-jurisdictional grounds in his Motion to Dismiss in Utah? - Did the Utah Court have jurisdiction over the Appellant in virtue of article 3168(3) of the Civil Code of Quebec which requires that injury be suffered in the jurisdiction where the decision was rendered and it resulted from a fault which was committed in that State or from an injurious act or omission which occurred there; and/or did the Utah Court have jurisdiction over the Appellant in virtue of article 3168(4) of the Civil Code of Quebec which requires that the obligations arising from a contract were to be performed in that jurisdiction? - Does article 3164 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which requires that the dispute be “substantially connected” with the jurisdiction whose authority is seized of the matter, apply in the present matter, and if so, did such a substantial connection exist between the Appellant and the State of Utah with regard to the relevant dispute?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Appellant is a Canadian businessman residing and domiciled in Quebec, who was operating a company based in Vermont (Barer Engineering Company of America, or “BEC”). The Respondent initiated legal proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Utah (“Utah Court”) against BEC and the Appellant personally, as well as a company based in Quebec and run by the Appellant, for amounts claimed to be due under a contract. The Appellant brought a motion before the Utah Court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction with respect to himself personally. The motion was dismissed and subsequently, on January 18, 2013, a default judgment was rendered against the Appellant (“Utah Judgment”). The Respondent thereafter sought recognition and enforcement in Quebec of the Utah Judgment. The Superior Court recognized the Utah Judgment and condemned the Appellant to pay $1,238,283.52, together with interest and legal costs. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.