Foreign Judgments at Common Law: Rethinking the Enforcement\nRules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
England and Canada have adopted divergent approaches to the enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments. An English court will only enforce a foreign judgment where the defendant submitted to the junsdiction of the foreign court, or was present in the foreign jurisdiction when served with process. This position. while protecting domestic defendants, is outdated and does little to further the objectives underpinning judgment enforcement- Canadian courts, by contrast, have been far more liberal than their English counterparts, enforcing foreign judgments in cases where there is a "real and substantial connection" between the dispute and the judgment forum. While this approach fully advances the objectives of judgment enforcement, it leaves Canadian defendants exposed to the perils and uncertainties of international litigation. An alternative to either of these positions would be to adopt a variant of the "real and substantial connection" test to govern the issue of foreign judgment recognition at common law. Under this framework, questions of how fair it is to require a domestic defendant to litigate in a foreign forum would be encapsulated within the jurisdictional inquiry itself. The judgment court would only be perceived as junsdictionally competent (and its judgment therefore enforceable) when, considenng the totality of the circumstances and the additional burdens imposed by international litigation, it is fair and reasonable to expect the defendant to litigate the claim in the foreign jurisdiction. This test underscores the fact that enforceability concerns are not the same domestically as they are internationally, and that a test which is to promote the freer movement of judgments must also encompass minimum fairness safeguards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".