Court File and Parties

Citation: FirstService Residential Alberta Ltd. v. Lloyd, 2016 ONSC 1418 Court File No.: CV-16-546633 Date: 2016-02-26 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: FirstService Residential Alberta Ltd., Applicant And: Carol Lloyd, Respondent

Before: S. F. Dunphy J.

Counsel: J. Marcus, for the Applicant

Heard: February 26, 2016

Endorsement

[1] There should be no doubt that courts in this province will assist courts in other provinces by enforcing their orders. Rubber stamps are potentially dangerous things and no court should be expected to wield one. There should be a very high level of confidence that discretion will almost always be exercised in favour of extending comity and assistance to courts in other provinces absent exceptional circumstances. Such cooperation is a small but important part of the glue that holds this federation together.

[2] On January 21, 2016, McCarthy J. of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Calgary) issued what are commonly known as a Mareva order and a Norwich Order. The former order restrained the respondent Carol Lloyd from disposing of her assets and required her to make disclosure of her property while the latter required third parties, including Bank of Montreal, to make disclosure in respect of accounts held by Ms. Lloyd. One of the listed accounts of interest is held by Bank of Montreal in Toronto.

[3] The orders were issued ex parte in the context of an action alleging a significant fraud perpetrated by Ms. Lloyd upon the plaintiff. Ms. Lloyd is a former employee of the plaintiff and is believed to be resident in Alberta.

[4] I have been asked to recognize both orders as if issued in Ontario thereby permitting their enforcement here. This will permit the plaintiff to obtain the assistance of Bank of Montreal in obtaining details of the Toronto bank account of the defendant, possibly generating leads that may lead to further enforcement actions in Ontario or elsewhere.

[5] At the hearing of the application, I indicated that I would grant the application and enforce the two orders as requested with short reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[6] The applicant has provided me with extensive evidence, including the evidence that was before McCarthy J. when the orders were made. I am grateful for the thoroughness displayed by the Applicant. Hopefully, my reasons here may permit future applications to proceed with less expense.

[7] It is clear that enforcement of out of province orders is not restricted to the circumstances prescribed by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.5. For a great number of years, courts across Canada have routinely enforced receivership orders of other Canadian courts with a minimum of fuss and bother. Similar orders, including bankruptcy orders emanating from the United States have also been quickly and efficiently enforced through the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of our Superior Courts to extend comity. Parliament later acted to codify that long-standing practice with amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, Part XIII and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, Part IV.

[8] The Supreme Court of Canada has strongly defended and indeed advanced the policy in favour of comity with its decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077, 1990 29 (SCC). Full faith and credit is to be extended to the decisions of other Canadian courts so long as the court has properly exercised its jurisdiction. That principle is not limited to money judgments.

[9] While it would be useful for the “sending” court to include in its order a specific request for the aid and recognition of other courts, at least where it is known in advance that such is likely to be required, this is not strictly necessary.

[10] I am satisfied that the Alberta court exercised its jurisdiction over the defendant reasonably. The fraud is alleged to have occurred while the defendant was employed by the plaintiff in Alberta and her last known address was also in Alberta. Knowledge of these facts as well as the fact of the orders issued that I am being asked to enforce will almost always be sufficient to warrant the enforcement of the out of province order. There is no suggestion that the order being enforced would result in a breach of Ontario law or violate public policy.

[11] I signed the draft order as requested to enforce both orders, endorsing the record that “I am fully satisfied that Alberta had jurisdiction to issue the orders made and that it is in the interests of justice that I grant all possible aid and assistance to the Alberta court in recognizing and enforcing these”.

S. F. Dunphy J.

Date: February 26, 2016