David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Lloyd's Underwriters v. Cominco Ltd., is a potentially seminal case, currently pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case involves the issue of whether Canadian courts should stay litigation in the face of duplicative foreign proceedings. This reply responds to Vaughan Black's and John Swan's comment on the Lloyd's case, which was published in volume 46 of the Canadian Business Law Journal. The reply argues that although Black and Swan have important insights into judgment enforcement when competing, inconsistent decisions exist, their analysis too readily skips over the first-to-file rule and underestimates the costs of reactive litigation. Canadian courts should embrace a nuanced version of the first-to-file rule because avoiding the costs of duplicative, reactive litigation is in Canada's best interest. The reply argues that Canadian courts should treat the issues of parallel proceedings and judgment enforcement symmetrically. Once a Canadian court finds that the same case has already been filed in a court of appropriate adjudicatory jurisdiction (consistent with Canadian jurisdictional principles), it should stay its proceedings unless the party opposing the stay can demonstrate that a clear injustice would occur if the stay is granted. The court should enter a stay, even if a Canadian province has greater connections with the dispute, so long as the foreign forum has real and substantial connections. It concludes by arguing that the Canadian Supreme Court would be wise to reverse the lower courts' decisions and find that the wastes inherent in duplicative litigation favors a stay in the Lloyd's case.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rex D. Glensy, Which Countries Count? Lawrence V. Texas and the Selection of Foreign Persuasive Authority.
William D. Araiza, Constitutional Rules and Institutional Roles: The Fate of the Equal Protection Class of One and What It Means for Congressional Power to Enforce Constitutional Rights.
Scott Paetty, Classless Not Clueless: A Comparison of Case Management Mechanisms for Non-Class-Based Complex Litigation in California and Federal Courts.
Bradley Miller (2009). Beguiled by Metaphors: The ‘Living Tree’ and Originalist Constitutional Interpretation in Canada. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 22 (2):331-354.
Alexandr Svetlicinii, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the Republic of Moldova: Evolution of the Pro-Arbitration Policy in the Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice.
Tanya J. Monestier, Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Plaintiffs in Multi-Jurisdictional Class Actions: Have We Gone Down the Wrong Road?
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #714,323 of 1,935,138 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,530 of 1,935,138 )
How can I increase my downloads?