Comments on: Paper of the Day: Gómez on The Global Chase: Seeking the Recognition and Enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment Outside of Ecuador https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/08/23/paper-of-the-day-gomez-on-the-global-chase-seeking-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-the-lago-agrio-judgmnt-outside-of-ecuador/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:25:05 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/08/23/paper-of-the-day-gomez-on-the-global-chase-seeking-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-the-lago-agrio-judgmnt-outside-of-ecuador/#comment-1427 Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:25:05 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=15913#comment-1427 In reply to Alex Manevich.

Thanks, Alex. Readers who want to refer back to your prior comment can find it here.

]]> By: Alex Manevich https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/08/23/paper-of-the-day-gomez-on-the-global-chase-seeking-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-the-lago-agrio-judgmnt-outside-of-ecuador/#comment-1426 Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:24:55 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=15913#comment-1426 Ted, many thanks for the link. A very interesting paper about a very interesting case.

I have to raise a small caveat about Prof. Gómez’s analysis of the Ontario Superior Court decision on the enforcement of the Ecuadorean judgment. I do not believe it is accurate to state, as the paper does, that the Ontario Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement proceedings (p. 450 and 451 of the paper). As I noted in my previous comments on this blog when the decision was released, my read of Justice Brown’s reasons is that they quite clearly state the opposite. The court expressly rejected the legal proposition that a plaintiff seeking to enforce a foreign judgment must demonstrate the existence of a “real and substantial connection” between the judgment debtor and Ontario (see paras. 77-85). Moreover, with respect to Chevron Canada, as it had a place of business in Ontario, the test was in any event satisfied (paras. 86-87). Instead, the court stayed the proceedings, though without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right to return to court if and when they have evidence of any potential Chevron assets in Ontario such that the dispute would be more than hypothetical.

Best regards,

Alex

]]>