In Canada, the law requires that the courts in one province give full faith and credit to the judgments that have been passed by another court in a different province. In the international relations, there is the common order that trade should be governed by justice and order that favor the security of transactions. According to the law, it is not allowable that one person can avoid the liability arising from legal obligations in one province by migrating to a different province. Since the provinces are all governed by one code of ethics, it is required that the court in one province uphold then judgment of another provided that it has properly exercised jurisdiction in the judgment. In this reflection, we shall focus on the Morguard Investments, Ltd. v. De Savoye case in the light of the level with which the U. S judgments are recognized in foreign courts.

This particular case intrigues my own knowledge on the judicial dependency in the modern day. As notes in the introduction, the most important part of the law is the administration of justice anywhere as long as the administration is consistent with the code of ethics common in the different courts. The court of appeal and that of British Columbia should have honored the judgment that had been made by the court in Alberta (Judgements of the Supreme courts of Canada, 1990). This is in the light that, territorial authority is only applicable where the plaintiff and the defendant belong to the same province or country. Moreover, with the developments in the modern trade, trade has become more international and there is need to embrace the fact that, courts need to work together to deliver judgments or else the international court might pile up more cases than local courts with increased trade.

It is also worth noting that, since the courts all share the same ethics, there is need to honor the decision made by a similar court to avoid inconsistency. In the event that we have the courts contradicting each other and overruling each other’s decision based on territorial jurisdiction, there is a high chance of similar offences recurring where; a person commits himself/herself to an agreement in one province and moves to another and stalls the process by changing the location. In most instances, there is the need for courts to concentrate on the delivery of justice as opposed to the territorial jurisdiction wrangles.

With such high levels of rigidity, it is apparent that, with the high levels of inconsistency in the law, globalization is a trend that might face a lot of judicial problems in terms of enforcement of rights. More importantly, trade will become impossible due to increased insecurity. Pilling up of cases on the international courts will slow business and reduce the chances of new ventures as entrepreneurs will not be willing to risks their ventures and later spend their time in courts. In situations as one discussed, it is imperative that, application of the English court laws that were upheld in the 19th century cannot serve the same purpose today. In those days, international law was hardly applied and states laid more emphasis on the territorial control. Globalization as a major trend nowadays aims at removing the territorial trade borders and therefore, there is need for courts to embrace this and develop law to facilitate the same.

References

Judgements of the Supreme courts of Canada (1990-12-20). Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077. SCC cases.Retrieved 02/04/2014, from http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/700/index.do.

Need assistance with this?