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.
