Hague Convention Choice of Court Agreement and the Common Law 2007

Comparison of the Convention and Existing Law [20] The focus in this section is on the differences between the rules laid out in the Convention and the rules on the corresponding subjects in common law Canada. [...] These include (1) the location of evidence and the effect of that on the relative expense and convenience of trying the matter in the competing forum, (2) which law applies, (3) the relative ease of enforcement of judgments from the respective courts, and (4) how closely the parties are connected with the jurisdictions in question. [...] For instance, proceedings are not excluded from the scope of the Convention merely by the fact that one of the parties to the contract with a choice-of-court clause is a state or governmental agency.[61] So international sale of goods contracts involving the Government of Canada as one of the contracting parties would fall within the Convention, and parties to those might well exclusively designat. [...] That is, federal legislation implementing the Convention would have to (1) stipulate that where jurisdiction existed under the Convention the Federal Court should not resort to forum non conveniens to stay or dismiss it and (2) where the jurisdiction otherwise existed under the rules of the Federal Court but where the Convention indicated such jurisdiction should be declined, the Convention should. [...] It permits contracting states to make declarations limiting their obligations to enforce foreign-country judgments pursuant to the Convention in one limited set of circumstances – namely if the parties were resident in the requested State, and the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, other than the location of the chosen court, were connected only with the re.