T. Carsten

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a CIETAC arbitral award issued in China.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds of incapacity and public policy, alleging that he signed the underlying repayment agreement under threat, coercion, and mental distress.

The court held that those allegations had already been raised before and rejected by the arbitral tribunal, and that the respondent's position amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the award.

Applying the limited refusal grounds under the New York Convention and Model Law, the court found no viable basis to deny enforcement and granted judgment in accordance with the award.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in Ontario on a personal guarantee related to a promissory note, despite the guarantee containing a New York choice of law and non-exclusive forum selection clause.

The court applied the Van Breda factors and concluded that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the risk of inconsistent results and the efficiency of applying New York law in a New York court.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.