CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: John Pirie, Matthew Latella, David Gadsden and Christina Doria, Baker McKenzie
had found the opposite – thereby setting up a direct conflict between Canadian public policy and the con - clusions of the Greek courts. However, enforcement of the Greek judgments before the Quebec courts was not sought; instead, the issue before the Canadian courts was whether to uphold the refusal to pay out under the letter of credit by the Canadian bank (the counterpart to the Greek bank in the letter of credit arrangements). In upholding the Canadian bank’s refusal to pay, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Greek judg - ments raised public order concerns because of their inconsistency with the relevant orders of the ICC Arbi - tral Tribunal and their failure to give proper considera - tion to relevant Canadian judgments. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded: “In the circumstances, it was open to the courts below to give the Greek deci - sions no weight, as mere facts rather than as execu - tory judgments.”
Enforcement of arbitral awards against foreign states under the State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18 (SIA) can present distinct issues. In The Republic of India v CCDM Holdings ( Devas ), 2024 QCCA 1620 , the Quebec Court of Appeal held that a foreign state that agrees to international arbitration and ratifies the New York Convention expressly waives sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the enforcing Canadian court under Section 4 (2)(a) of the SIA. The Court also con - firmed that the SIA does not preclude ex parte pre- judgment seizures of state-owned assets, and that an award creditor may seek enforcement against the state or any alter ego.
83 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook