CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: John Pirie, Matthew Latella, David Gadsden and Christina Doria, Baker McKenzie
which were at odds with the arbitral awards and deci - sions of the Quebec courts. Specifically, the Greek courts found the Greek government had not engaged in fraud under Greek law, whereas the Quebec courts 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.”
63 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook