The applicant sought to enforce a judgment from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, awarding her USD $157,158.96 for battery.

The respondent did not appear at the Ontario application but had participated in the Nevada trial through counsel.

The court proceeded in the respondent's absence, finding proper service and a deliberate choice not to participate.

The court recognized and enforced the foreign judgment, determining it was final and conclusive, and that the Nevada court properly assumed jurisdiction through both the respondent's attornment and a real and substantial connection (the tort occurred in Nevada).

No valid defences of fraud, lack of natural justice, or public policy were found.

The application was granted, and the Nevada judgment was recognized as an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judgment, with costs of $7,500 awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiffs, survivors and close family members of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, sought to recognize and enforce a US default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The court granted the motion for default judgment, finding that the US court properly exercised jurisdiction, the judgment was final and conclusive, and no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice were available.

The decision relied on the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) and the State Immunity Act (SIA), which provide exceptions to state immunity for terrorism-related acts, and ordered the defendants to pay the specified damages and costs.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a New York judgment for over USD$6.7 million against the respondents, who had provided personal guarantees.

The respondents resisted on grounds of public policy, natural justice (alleging a conflict of interest by the applicant's New York law firm), and that the proceeding should have been an action, not an application.

The court rejected the public policy and natural justice arguments because the conflict issue was not raised in the New York court, emphasizing judicial finality and comity.

The court also found that an application was appropriate as there were no material facts in dispute.

The New York judgment was recognized and enforced.