C. Doria

The applicant sought a declaration that a foreign state held an equitable or other interest in shares of a Canadian mining company registered in the name of a state-owned corporation, and an order permitting seizure of those shares to satisfy an unpaid international arbitral award.

The court examined the structure of the state-owned corporation, the governing agreements surrounding the share issuance, and applicable foreign and domestic law.

It concluded that the foreign state provided the consideration for the shares, exercised effective control over them, and was intended by the parties to have a beneficial interest.

Under s. 18 of the Execution Act, that equitable interest constituted property capable of seizure.

The court therefore authorized seizure of the shares and related dividends to enforce the arbitral award.

Following dismissal of stay and forum non conveniens motions in an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful applicant sought $65,000 in partial indemnity costs apportioned between the responding corporation and a non‑party that had actively participated in the motion.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of proportionality and fairness articulated by the Court of Appeal, finding the requested amount reasonable given the complexity of the issues and extensive materials filed.

It held that a non‑party that voluntarily participates in litigation to protect its own interests may be liable for costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were fixed at $65,000 and apportioned 75% to the corporate respondent and 25% to the participating non‑party.

A state-owned corporation moved to set aside an Ontario order recognizing and enforcing an international arbitral award against a foreign state and alternatively sought a stay of related execution proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.

The moving party argued it was a person affected by the judgment because enforcement steps sought to seize shares it claimed to own.

The court held that a non-party claiming a proprietary interest in assets subject to execution does not have standing under Rule 38.11 to attack the underlying judgment against the debtor state.

The court further held that the moving party failed to establish that a foreign jurisdiction was clearly a more appropriate forum to determine ownership of shares issued by an Ontario-headquartered corporation for purposes of enforcing the judgment.

Both motions were dismissed.