Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

COMMENT: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

ARBITRAL AWARDS SUBJECT TO LOCAL
LIMITATION PERIODS - SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA

Michael D. Schafler

I. INTRODUCTION: CANADA'S ENFORCEMENT PATCHWORK

In Canada, final arbitration awards are recognized as legally
binding between the parties without the need for any judicial
proceedings. However, a party who wishes to enforce a final
award by the customary means of seizure and sale, garnishment,
contempt and the like, must first apply to the local court to obtain
judgment enforcing the award. While this general concept seems
simple in theory, the reality is much more complex.

Canada is a confederation of ten provinces and three
territories, each with a separate and independent judicial system.
When it comes to the enforcement of an arbitral award, the local
rules of the enforcing jurisdiction apply, creating a system that
results in a complicated patchwork of different procedures. Most
significantly, local limitation periods apply to enforcement
proceedings, as the Supreme Court of Canada, Canada's final
arbiter, has recently decided. This paper reviews this decision,
beginning with a brief overview of the case, followed by the
relevant legislative framework, the Court's conclusions, and a
brief commentary. While the Supreme Court's decision dealt with
an Alberta case, the analytical approach adopted by the Court
applies to all Canadian jurisdictions and therefore has pan-
Canadian consequences.

II. YUGRANEFT CORP. V. REXX MANAGEMENT CORP.

In Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. [2010] S.C.C 19,
the Supreme Court of Canada held that the imposition of a time
limit for the enforcement of an international commercial arbitral
award is a procedural rule permitted by Article III of the 1958