This is an extract of our Morguard Investment V. De Savoye document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
MORGUARD INVESTMENT V. DE SAVOYE
FACTS The respondents, Morguard Investments Limited and Credit Foncier Trust Company, became mortgagees of land in Alberta in
1978. The appellant, Douglas De Savoye, who then resided in Alberta, was originally guarantor but later took title to the land and assumed the obligation of mortgagor. Shortly afterwards he moved to British Columbia, and he has not resided or carried on business in Alberta since. The mortgages fell into default and the respondents brought action in Alberta. The appellant was served with process in the action by double registered mail addressed to his home in British Columbia pursuant to orders for service by the Alberta court in accordance with the rules for service outside its jurisdiction. There are rules to the same effect in British Columbia. The appellant took no steps to appear or to defend the action. There was no clause in the mortgage by which he agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Alberta court, and he did not attorn to its jurisdiction. The respondents obtained judgments nisi in the foreclosure action. At the expiry of the redemption period, they obtained "Rice orders" against the appellant. Under these orders, a judicial sale of the mortgaged properties to the respondents took place and judgment was entered against the appellant for the deficiencies between the value of the property and the amount owing on the mortgages. The respondents then each commenced a separate action in the British Columbia Supreme Court to enforce the Alberta judgment for the deficiencies. HOLDING However that may be, there is really no comparison between the interprovincial relationships of today and those obtaining between foreign countries in the 19th century. Indeed, in my view there never was, and the courts made a serious error in transposing the rules developed for the enforcement of foreign judgments to the enforcement of judgments from sister provinces. The considerations underlying the rules of comity apply with much greater force between the units of a federal state, and I do not think it much matters whether one calls these rules of comity or simply relies directly on the reasons of justice, necessity and convenience to which I have already adverted. These arrangements themselves speak to the strong need for the enforcement throughout the country of judgments given in one province. But that is not all. The Canadian judicial structure is so arranged that any concerns about differential quality of justice
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.