Latino Wall Street, LLC v. Ontiveros: Enforcing a Foreign Judgment in Ontario Despite a Failure of Notice

The decisions in Latino Wall Street, LLC v. Ontiveros, 2026 ONSC 3985 and 2026 ONSC 4439, address a question that arises regularly for parties seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario: what happens when a Canadian defendant did not actually receive notice of the foreign proceeding, but had contractually agreed to the foreign court's jurisdiction?

The two decisions, released in the same proceeding, confirm that a forum selection clause can save an enforcement application even where notice of the foreign proceeding was deficient, provided the foreign legal system offers a genuine remedy to set aside the default judgment. The case also confirms that Ontario courts will not overlook a judgment creditor's failure to take basic steps to notify a defendant of a claim, even where the applicant ultimately succeeds.

Facts

The applicant, a Puerto Rico company, obtained a default judgment in the United States District Court for Puerto Rico against an Ontario resident and former independent contractor for over USD $1 million. The underlying contract contained a Puerto Rico forum selection clause and a Puerto Rico governing law clause.

The applicant attempted service through the Hague Convention Central Authority in Ontario. After roughly one year passed without any update on service, the applicant obtained an order from the Puerto Rico court permitting substituted service by the court clerk through registered mail requiring a signed receipt. The clerk mailed the documents, and the United States Postal Service confirmed the item was delivered in Canada, but no signed receipt was ever filed with the court. Default judgment followed.

The respondent swore that she never received the complaint, never received any delivery notice or pickup slip, and had no knowledge of the Puerto Rico proceeding until she was served with the judgment itself. At no point did the applicant attempt to notify the respondent directly by email, telephone, or courier, despite having her contact information throughout.

The Canadian case law addressing this precise scenario, a foreign default judgment obtained through substituted service where the defendant denies actual notice, is thin and not entirely consistent. The application judge found that outcomes turn heavily on whether the defendant had attorned to the foreign jurisdiction and whether a genuine remedy existed there.

The Test for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment in Ontario

Ontario courts apply a generous and liberal approach to recognizing foreign judgments. The applicant must establish that the foreign judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is final, and is for a definite sum of money. Once those three elements are met, the defendant may resist enforcement only by establishing fraud, a breach of public policy, or a lack of natural justice.

In this case, jurisdiction was not seriously in dispute. The respondent had contractually agreed that the courts of Puerto Rico would have jurisdiction over any dispute arising from her agreement with the applicant, and that Puerto Rico law would govern. The judgment was also final and for a definite sum. The entire application therefore turned on the single remaining defence: lack of natural justice.

The Natural Justice Defence Turns on Notice, Not on Compliance with Foreign Procedure

Natural justice in this context requires that a defendant receive adequate notice of a claim and a genuine opportunity to defend it. Satisfying a foreign court's own service rules does not automatically satisfy this requirement. Ontario courts will independently assess whether the method of service actually gave the defendant real notice.

The application judge found, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent did not receive actual notice of the Puerto Rico proceeding. The registered mail delivery confirmation from the postal service did not include a signed receipt, despite the Puerto Rico court's own order requiring one.

The applicant made no attempt to confirm receipt through any other means, and did not cross-examine the respondent on her sworn evidence denying notice. The application judge observed that few Ontario judges would have granted default judgment on a comparable record without further follow-up. This finding of a natural justice breach would ordinarily be sufficient, on its own, to refuse enforcement.

A Forum Selection Clause and an Available Foreign Remedy Can Overcome a Notice Deficiency

A finding that a defendant lacked actual notice does not automatically defeat enforcement. The application judge accepted that, by virtue of the forum selection clause, the defendant had attorned to the Puerto Rico court.

More importantly, the respondent had an available procedure to set aside the judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applied in the Puerto Rico proceeding, allowed a party to seek relief from a final judgment for any reason that justifies relief, without a fixed time limit beyond a requirement that the motion be brought within a reasonable time.

Because this remedy was available to the respondent, and because she had contractually agreed to Puerto Rico as the proper forum, the application judge held that comity required the Ontario court to defer to the Puerto Rico court rather than refuse enforcement outright. The Puerto Rico judgment was recognized in Ontario.

Failing to Use the Available Foreign Remedy Defeated the Request for a Stay

In the second decision, the application judge addressed whether the Ontario judgment should be stayed to allow the respondent time to bring a motion in Puerto Rico to set aside the foreign judgment. The stay was refused. The respondent had done little more than research what steps she might need to take in Puerto Rico and had not actually brought the motion.

The Applicant Was Denied Costs Despite Winning

The application judge declined to award costs to the applicant, notwithstanding its success on the application. The court noted that the applicant never attempted to notify the respondent by email, regular mail, or courier, even though it had her contact information throughout the Puerto Rico proceeding.

The court held that this approach should be discouraged, and that denying costs would help discourage other litigants from taking the same approach. The court added that most of the issues raised in the Ontario enforcement proceeding could have been avoided entirely had the applicant taken this simple step.

Key Takeaways

First, Ontario remains an accommodating jurisdiction for enforcing foreign judgments. The threshold test of jurisdiction, finality, and a definite sum is not onerous, and Canadian courts have expressly adopted a liberal approach to recognition.

Second, the natural justice defence, and in particular the adequacy of notice, is where most contested enforcement applications will actually be won or lost. Compliance with a foreign court's own service rules is not the end of the inquiry. An Ontario court will independently assess whether the method used gave the defendant real notice of the claim.

Third, a properly drafted forum selection and choice of law clause remains one of the most valuable tools available to a foreign judgment creditor, even after judgment has been obtained. Where a defendant has contractually attorned to the foreign jurisdiction, an Ontario court may still enforce the judgment despite a notice deficiency, provided the foreign legal system offers the defendant a genuine and available mechanism to set aside the default judgment.

Fourth, a foreign judgment creditor should never rely exclusively on formal service mechanisms, whether under the Hague Convention or a foreign court's substituted service rules. Ontario courts expect a litigant with a defendant's contact information to take basic, low-cost additional steps, such as an email, a courier, or a phone call, to confirm actual notice.

Finally, where a foreign judgment debtor is found to have had no notice of the underlying proceeding but is nonetheless required to pursue a remedy abroad, that debtor must actually take steps to pursue it. Conducting research into the available remedy, without commencing the required motion, will not support a stay of the Ontario enforcement judgment.