Thanks, Antonin, for the helpful comment. The word “suspend” isn’t my word—it comes from the interim award in Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23, one of the investment treaty arbitrations pending between Chevron and Ecuador. The reason the tribunal used the word “suspended” was that it was merely granting preliminary relief, not making a final decision on the merits.

With respect to Canada, the underlying Ecuadorean judgment would no longer be final and conclusive, insofar as it would no longer be res judicata in Ecuador. Hence, it would no longer be recognizable or enforceable in common law Canada. This comports with the converse situation that a Canadian court will not enforce a foreign judgment that is inconsistent with a prior judgment of the forum.

However, under Canadian conflict of laws, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to foreign judgments, such that the cause of action is not considered to have merged in the foreign judgment. Subject to limitation periods (which would have prescribed a long time ago in the Lago Agrio case), it remains theoretically possible for a foreign plaintiff to sue again on the original cause of action, should the foreign judgment no longer be enforceable by the forum. One wrinkle is your phrasing “suspend the operation of the Lago Agrio judgment.” In my view, the Lago Agrio judgment would have to be vacated, rather than merely, suspended, since it theoretically could be enforced or executed upon, in futuro.

Antonin I. Pribetic