Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T08:51:52.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exemption from the Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

J.-G. Castel
J.-G. Castel*
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Get access

Extract

I Persons against whom the jurisdiction cannot be enforced

The first part of this note deals with the persons who claim immunity from the compulsory jurisdiction of Canadian courts.

(1) The Foreign State, Sovereign or Head of Foreign State as a Defendant

The law relating to the immunity of foreign states and sovereigns or heads of foreign states from Canadian jurisdiction is to be found in the common law and has been stated and re-stated in leading cases such as The Parlement Belge, The Porto Alexandre, The Cristina, Dessaulles v. The Republic of Poland and Mehr v. The Republic of China et al. Lord Atkin reduced this law to two propositions:

The first is that the courts of a country will not implead a foreign sovereign, that is, they will not by their process make him against his will a party to legal proceedings whether the proceedings involve process against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages.

The second is that they will not by their process, whether the sovereign is a party to the proceedings or not, seize or detain property which is his or of which he is in possession or control.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 9 , 1971 , pp. 159 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1880] 5 P.D. 197.

2 [1920] P.D. 30.

3 [1938] A.C. 485.

4 [1944] S.C.R. 275.

5 [1956] O.W.N. 218.

6 The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485, 490 (italics added). See also Hendry, , “Sovereign Immunity from the Jurisdiction of the Courts,” (1958) 36 Can. Bar Rev. 145.Google Scholar

7 Kahan v. Pakistan Federation, [1951] 2 K.B. 1003.

8 Duff Development Company Limited v. Government of Kelantan and Another, [1924] A.C. 797, 808.

9 The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939I A.C. 256. Re: Proof of Sovereignty: The court takes judicial notice of the fact that a particular person is the sovereign or head of foreign state; in case of difficulty, the usual practice is to obtain a certificate from the Minister for External Affairs, whose statement is conclusive: see ibid., 268.

10 Dessaulles v. Republic of Poland, [1944] S.C.R. 275, per Taschereau J., at 277.

11 In Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad and Another, [1958] A.C. 379, Lord Reid stated at 404: “The principle of sovereign immunity is not founded on any technical rules of law: it is founded on broad considerations of public policy, international law, and comity.”

12 [1958] A.C. 379, 418.

13 [1894] ι Q.B. 149.

14 Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar, Tunku Aris Bendahara, [1952] A.C. 318, 343.

15 The Charkieh (1873), L.R. 4 Ad. & E. 59, 97, obiter by Sir Robert Phillimore, and see Article 31 (1)(a) Vienna Convention on Diplomatie Relations, infra.

16 Sultan of Johore ν. Abubakar, Tunku Aris Bendahara, [1952] A.C. 318, 343; Larivière ν. Morgan (1872), L.R. 7 Ch. 550, aff’d sub nom Morgan v. Larivière (1875), L.R. 7 H.L. 423 as explained by Lord Radcliffe in U.S.A. v. Dollfuss Mieg et Cie S.A. & Bank of England, [1952] A.C. 582, 617–18.

17 Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad and Another, [1958] A.C. 379, 401 and 408.

18 Re Russian Bank for Foreign Trade, [1933] Ch. 745, 769–70.

19 Starke, , An Introduction to International Law 220 (1967).Google Scholar

20 Duff Development Company, Limited v. Government of Kelantan and Another, [1924] A.C. 797.

21 Wedderburn, , “Sovereign Immunity of Foreign Public Corporations,” (1950) 6 Int’l and Comp. L.Q. 290.Google Scholar

22 [1949] 2 All E.R. 274.

23 [1957] 1 QB. 438.

24 See Mellenger and Another v. New Brunswick Development Corporation, [1971] 2 All E.R. 593 (CA.). The question whether a particular body is a department of the foreign government is a question of foreign law on which the best (but not conclusive) evidence is that of the foreign ambassador: Baccus S.R.L. v. Servicio Nacional Del Trigo, [1957] 1 Q.B. 438, 471.

25 Benjamin Greene and John F. Gaynor v. The United States of America (1902), 22 Que. S.C. 91; U.S.A. v. Motor Trucks Limited (1922), 52 O.L.R. 262, [1923] 3 D.L.R. 673.

26 The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485, 490, per Lord Atkin.

27 See language of the courts in Le Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo v. Venne (1972), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 669 (S.C.C.) ; Flota Maritima Browning De Cuba S.A. v. The Republic of Cuba, [1962] S.C.R. 598; Chateau-Gai Wines Limited v. Le Gouvernement de la République Française (1967), 61 D.L.R. (2d) 709 (Ex. C.R.).

28 S.C. 1970–71, c.1.

29 The Parlement Belge, [1880] 5 P.D. 197.

30 [1938] A.C. 485.

31 [1952] A.C. 582.

32 [1958] A.C. 379

33 Juan Ysmael & Company Incorporated v. Government of the Republic of Indonesia, [1955] A.C. 72.

34 [1958] A.C. 379.

35 Rahimtoola v. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Others, [1958] A.C. 379, 410.

36 Yin-Tso Hsiung v. The City of Toronto, [1950] O.R. 463, 467.

37 Yin-Tso Hsiung v. The City of Toronto, [1950] O.R. 463.

38 Reference Re Powers of the Corp. of City of Ottawa and Corp. of Village of Rockcliffe Park to Levy Rates on Foreign Legations and High Commissioners’ Residences, [1943] S.C.R. 208.

39 Municipality of Saint John et al. v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp. et al., [1958] S.C.R. 263.

40 [1939] 3 D.L.R. 533 (Ont. C.A.).

41 [1967] 1 O.R. 87.

42 [1880] 5 P.D. 197.

43 For example, the theory was applied in The Porto Alexandre, [1920] P.D. 30; The Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485; Krajina v. The Tass Agency and Another, [1949] 2 All E.R. 274; Baccus S.R.L. v. Servicio Nacional Del Trigo, [1957] 1 Q.B. 438; Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hydarabad and Another, [1958] A.C. 379.

44 [1938] A.C. 485, 490.

45 [1938] A.C. 485, 521.

46 [1958] A.C. 379, 417 et seq. See also Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar, Tunku Aris Bendahara, [1952] 1 All E.R. 1261, per Viscount Simon, at 1268.

47 The immunity may, however, be waived by the foreign state. See infra.

48 26 Dep’t. State Bull. 984 (1952). See also Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Restatement of the Law, Second (1962), s. 69 and Victory Transport, Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes 1964), 336 F. 2d 354, cert. den. (1965), 381 U.S. 934.

49 Schmitthoff, , “The Claim of Sovereign Immunity in the Law of International Trade,” (1958) 7 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 452, 454–55Google Scholar

50 Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad and Another, [1958] A.C. 379, 422.

51 See Allan Construction Ltd. v. Le Gouvernement du Vénézuela, [1969] Qué. P.R. 145, per Reid, J., and Vincke, C., “Certain aspects de l’évolution récente du problème de l’immunité de jurisdiction des Etats,” (1969) 7 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 224, 249.Google Scholar

52 (1922), 21 Ex. CR. 406.

53 [1946] Ex. CR. 555.

54 [1938] A.C. 485

55 [1962] S.C.R. 598.

56 See, however, per Ritchie J., ibid., 604:

“The material before us clearly indicates that at the time of their arrest the defendant ships, although lying idle in Halifax harbour and being equipped as trading or passenger ships, were nonetheless owned by and in possession of a foreign state and were being supervised by G.T.R. Campbell & Company which company was accounting for such supervision to ‘a division of the Ministry of Revolutionary Armed Forces, Republic of Cuba’. Although the ships might ultimately be used by Cuba as trading or passenger ships, there is no evidence before us as to the use for which they were destined, and, with the greatest respect for the contrary view adopted by Mr. Justice Pottier who had the benefit of viewing the ships, I nevertheless do not feel that we are in a position to say that these ships are going to be used for ordinary trading purposes. All that can be said is that they are available to be used by the Republic of Cuba for any purpose which its government may select, and it seems to me that ships which are at the disposal of a foreign state and are being supervised for the account of a department of government of that state are to be regarded as “public ships of a sovereign state” at least until such time as some decision is made by the sovereign state in question as to the use to which they are to be put.”

See also Locke J. at page 609.

51 [1962] S.C.R. 598.

58 [1968] R.P. 145. See Rabcewicz — Zubrowski, L. Kos —, “Immunité de juridiction. Etat ou gouvernement étranger. Exposition universelle de 1967,” (1968) 6 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 242 Google Scholar; C. Vincke, supra note 51.

59 (1969), 5 D.L.R. (3d) 128 (Que. C.A.) affirming [1968] P.R. 6.

60 Venne v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1969), 5 D.L.R. (3d) 128, 146–47. L. Serafini (1969), 15 McGill L. J. 493.

61 (1970), 8 D.L.R. (3d) 686 (Que. C.A.).

62 (1972), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 669.

63 At page 673.

64 At page 677–78.

65 At page 691. The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo challenged the suit by a declinatory exception. Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, Article 164. Thus, the interlocutory proceedings became the vehicle for the determination of the basic issue in the litigation, namely, the immunity of the foreign government from suit and from the jurisdiction of the Quebec Superior Court.

66 At page 684.

67 See Rand J. in St. John v. Fraser-Brace Overseas Corp., [1958] S.C.R. 263, 267. A more realistic and flexible basis for immunity is to be found in the conception of “an invitation by the host State to the visiting State.”

68 At page 687.

69 S.C. 1970–71, c. 1.

70 [1969] Que. Q.B. 818, 5 D.L.R. (3d) 128, 138. Note that in Sicard v. Le Gouvernement de la République du Vênézuéla, [1970] R.P. 97, sovereign immunity was recognized as no sufficient proof was given that an act jure gestionis was involved.

71 At page 674.

72 See Lord Denning in the Nizam of Hyderabad’s case, [1957] 3 W.L.R. 884, 910, and Sir Lauterpacht, Hersch, “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States,” (1951) 28 Brit. Yr. Int’l L. 220.Google Scholar

73 In Canada, see, for instance, Crown Liability Act, S.C. 1952–53, c. 30.

74 S.C. 1953–54, 55, c. 54.

75 As to the effect of ratification and the necessity for implementing legislation, see Castel, Public International Law 827, 851. (1965).

76 The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708, 7 Anne, c. 12, was applicable in Canada. Other countries have implemented the Vienna Convention: for instance, Australia has passed the Diplomatic Privileges & Immunities Act, 1967 (Com.), s. 6 and the U.K. The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964.

77 All these terms are defined in Article 1 of the Convention. The Convention does not apply to foreign sovereigns themselves or their property.

78 Articles 29 and 30 of the Convention.

79 Artide 38 of the Convention.

80 Article 37 (1) of the Convention.

81 Article 37 (2) of Convention.

82 Article 37 (3) of Convention.

83 Article 37 (4) ; also Article 38 (2).

84 Article 39 (2).

85 Ghosh v. D’Rozario, [1962] 2 All E.R. 640.

86 See Article 31 (4).

87 (1947), 88 C.C.C. 114 (Que.).

88 [1947] O.R. 201.

89 S.C. 1953–54, c. 54.

90 Section 5.

91 Section 5 (4).

92 Section 6.

93 Section 8 of Act.

94 This provision concurs with the decision of Engelke v. Mussmann, [1928] A.C. 433 : “A statement made to the Court by the Attorney-General on the instructions of the Foreign Office as to the status of a person claiming immunity from judicial process on the ground of diplomatic privilege, whether as ambassador or as a member of the ambassador’s staff, is conclusive.”

95 Section 3 (3).

96 (1963) 57 Am. J. Int’l L. 993.

97 Leonard v. Premio-Real (1885), 11 Q.L.R. 128.

98 Maluquer v. Rex (1924), 38 Que. K.B. 1.

99 Campbell v. Cour des Sessions Générales de la Paix (1930), 49 Que. K.B. 65 and Lazarovitch v. Consulat Général de Grèce et Pappas, [1968] Que. C.S. 486.

100 [1968] Que. CS. 486.

101 (1969) 7 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 304.

102 Article 40.

103 [1943] S.C.R. 483. In this case two other well-known cases were referred to, namely, Schooner “Exchange” v. M’Faddon (1812), 7 Cranch 116, and Chung Chi Cheung v. The King, [1939] A.C. 160.

104 S.C. 1967–68, c. 33. This Act repealed three preceding Acts, namely, Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, R.S.C. 195a, c. 283; Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 284; Visiting Forces (U.S.A.) Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 285.

105 (1969) 7 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 306.

106 R.S.C. 1952, c. 218.

107 R.S.C. 1952, c. 219, as amended by S.C. 1964, c. 47. Dai, Poelui, “The Headquarters Agreement between Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization,” (1964) 2 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 205.Google Scholar

108 Article 5 of Privileges and Immunities (NATO) Act, and section 2 of Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.

109 Articles 6 and 7 of Privileges and Immunities (NATO) Act, and sections 3 and 4 of Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.

110 Article 11 of Privileges and Immunities (NATO) Act and section 9 of Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.

111 Article 12 of Privileges and Immunities (NATO) Act and section 11 of Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.

112 U.S.A. v. Motor Trucks Ltd. (1982), 52 O.L.R. 262, 289.

113 République de Pologne v. Dessaulles, [1943] Que. K.B. 224, 229.

114 Mehr v. The Republic of China et al., [1956] O.W.N. 218, 219; South African Republic v. Compagnie Franco-Belge, [1898] 1 Ch. 190, 195.

115 [1957] 1 Q-B. 438.

116 Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 Q.B. 149, 159. A defendant cannot be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction by entering a plea to the effect that it is not subject thereto. Le Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo v. Venne (1972) 22 D.L.R. (3d) 669 (S.C.C.), per Ritchie J. at page 679 relying upon Duff Development Company, Limited v. Government of Kelantan and Another, [1924] A.C. 797. See also Laskin J. at page 681.

“English law has been consistent in holding that waiver and submission to jurisdiction on the part of a foreign sovereign State must, to be effective, be made in the face of the court and at the time the court is asked to exercise its jurisdiction.”

117 See Altan Construction Ltd. v. The Government of Venezuela, [1968] P.R. 145, per Reid J. at 175 and 178. In Government of the Republic of Venezuela and Another v. Altschuler, [1970] B.R. 828 (res.), the Quebec Court of Appeal held that by asking security for costs the foreign state waived its immunity.

In Le Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo v. Venne (1972), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 669, Laskin J. dissenting, said, at page 681:

“… a previous agreement to submit, although part of contract sued upon, is not binding upon the foreign Government which may resile from it. Whether or not the time may come when waiver by contractual agreement will be recognized as effective (as proposed, for example, by the Restatement (Second), Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1965) s. 70), the present case may be disposed of on this issue without relying on the English rule, which is also the prevailing rule in the United States. There was here no contractual submission, but, from the outset, a resistance to jurisdiction, subject to the courtesy of an appearance to contest it.”

118 At common law the question is not finally settled. See Re Suarez, [1917] Ch. 385; Duff Development Co. v. Government of Kelantan, [1924] A.C. 797, 810, 821, 830.

119 Article 32 (3).

120 R. v. Mudan, [1961] 1 All E.R. 588, 591 (Italics added).

121 Schwarzenberger, , A Manual of International Law 94 (1960).Google Scholar

122 S.C. 1953–54, c. 54.

123 See Articles 5 and 15 of the Privileges and Immunities (NATO) Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 218 and Sections 2 and 14 of the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 219.

124 For example, Canadian Stewart Co. v. Perth (1915), 17 Que. P.R. 291, (1916), 25 Que. K.B. 158; Dangler v. Hollinger Gold Mines (1915), 23 D.L.R. 384 (Ont.).

125 For example, Sovfracht (υ/ο) v. Van Udens Scheepvaart En Agentuur Maatschappij (N.V. Gebr.), [1943] A.C. 203, 209; Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K.B. 857.

126 Courts will take judicial notice of a state of war: Stanford v. Nicoleau (1941), 45 Que. P.R. 298 (S.C.) ; Rex v. Trainar (1916), 33 D.L.R. 658 (Alta S.C).

127 Reventlow v. Rur Mun of Streamstown (1917), 37 D.L.R. 394, 396 (Alta S.C); Lampel v. Berger (1918), 38 D.L.R. 47 (Ont.).

128 Sovfracht etc. v. Van Udens etc., [1943] A.C. 203, 219.

129 Latha v. Halycznk (1918), 14 O.W.N. 219, 220. An alien residing in Quebec is not an enemy merely because he was born in a country at war with Canada: De Kozarijouk et al v. Β. & A. Asbestos Co. (1914), 16 Que. P.R. 213; Sap v. Picard (1919), 20 Que. P.R. 178; Viola & McKenzie, Mann & Cie (1915), 24 Que. K.B. 31.

130 Ragusz v. Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, [1916] 30 D.L.R. 662, 663 (Que. K.B.).

131 Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, 869.

132 R.S.C., 1927, c. 206. Now see R.S.C., 1970, c. W-2. See, for instance, The Consolidated Orders respecting Trading with the Enemy 1916, s. 1(1) (b). “ ‘Enemy’ shall extend to and include a person (as defined in this order) who resides or carries on business within territory of a state or sovereign for the time being at war with His Majesty, or who resides or carries on business within territory occupied by a state or sovereign for the time being at war with His Majesty, and as well any person wherever resident carrying on business, who is an enemy or treated as an enemy and with whom dealing is for the time being prohibited by statute, proclamation, the following orders and regulations or the common law. . . .” See also Trasciati v. Roncarelli et al., [1945] Que. K..B 454. Now see Revised Regulations Respecting Trading with the Enemy (1943), in Schedule to the Trading with the Enemy (Transitional Powers) Act, S.C. 1947, c. 24, s. 1 (d),

133 [1916] 2 A.C. 307.

134 “A company may… assume an enemy character… if its agents or the persons in de facto control of its affairs… are resident in an enemy country, or, wherever resident, are adhering to the enemy or taking instructions from or acting under the control of enemies”: Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd., [1916] 2 A.C. 307, 345.

135 [1943] A.C. 203.

130 The Pamia, [1943] 1 All E.R. 269.

137 Sovfracht etc. v. Van Udens etc. [1943] A.C. 203, 213; Korziwiski v. Harris Construction Co. Ltd. (1916) 18 Que. P.R. 97.

138 In Rex v. Bottrill, [1947] K.B. 41, 53, the court stated that the certificate issued by the Minister for External Affairs is conclusive evidence of an existing state of war.

139 De Kozarijouk v. B & B Asbestos Co. (1914), 16 Que. P.R. 213. Pesco v. Belleville (1941), 45 Que. P.R. 49: plaintiff residing in occupied France may ask suspension of procedure during the war.

140 Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, 884.

141 R.S.O. 1970, c. 228.

142 (1915), 34 O.L.R. 549.

143 Ibid., 555. In the case of Dumenko v. Swift Canadian Company Ltd. (1914), 32 O.L.R. 87, where the plaintiff, an enemy alien, moved for an order staying all proceedings, the plaintiff’s motion was dismissed, and then the action was dismissed on the defendant’s motion. However, the Dumenko case was distinguished in the Luczycki case, and in the latter case the judge, in refusing to dismiss the action, justified the Dumenko decision on the fact that the plaintiff, an enemy alien, was in default of giving security for costs, and thus the action was well dismissed.

144 (1916), 36 O.L.R. 447, (1916), 30 D.L.R. 459.

145 See also Radley v. Garber (1915), 50 Que. S.C. 264.

146 Eickengruen v. Mond, [1940] Ch. 785.

147 Topay v. Crow’s Nest Pass Coal Company (1914), 18 D.L.R. 784 (B.C.S.C.).

148 Can. Gaz. August 22, 1914, at 617.

149 Can. Gaz. September 11, 1939.

150 As to the rights of enemy aliens while interned and after the internment ceases, see Gusetu v. Date (1915), 17 Que. P.R. 95 ; Harasymczuk v. Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. (1916), 25 Que. K.B. 252; Re Chamryk (1914), 19 D.L.R. 236 (Man.); Re Beranek (1915), 25 D.L.R. 564 (Ont); Gusetu v. Laing (1916), 18 Que. P.R. 371, ( 1915), 48 Que. S.C. 427;Fabry v. Finlay (1916), 50 S.C. 14; Swail v. Trieber (1916), 17 Que. P.R. 428; Roncarelli v. Garbarino et al., [1943] Que. S.C. 304.

151 (1917), 41 O.L.R. 51.

152 (1914), 18 D.L.R. 784 (B.C.S.C.).

153 [I939] O.W.N. 587.

154 (1914), 20 D.L.R. 959 (Ont).

155 Raguez v. Harbour Commissioners (1916), 18 Que. P.R. 98.

In the case of Pescovitch v. Western Canada Flour Mills Co. (1914), 18 D.L.R. 786 (Man. K.B.), the court also held that there is no onus on the plaintiff, the enemy alien, to prove that the proclamation applies to him; the burden is on those asserting the fact that the enemy alien is not entitled to the protection of the law. Cf. Bassi v. Sullivan (1914), 18 D.L.R. 452 (Ont.). In Viola v. MacKenzie Mann & Co. (1915), 24 Que. K.B. 31 it was held that, unless hostile acts are alleged and proved against the alien, he must be deemed to have the same rights as before the war. In Baumfelder v. Sec. of State of Canada, [1927] Ex. C.R. 86, MacLean J. said at page 92 : “A German national residing in Canada during the war and not deported or declared by the Governor in Council to be an enemy is clearly not an enemy within the terms of Part II of the Order, and I think as a matter of public policy such was not intended.”

156 De Kozarijouk v. B & A Asbestos Co. (1914), 16 Que. P.R. 213; Canadian Stewart Co. v. Perth (1916), 25 Que. K.B. 158.

157 Newman v. Bradshaw (1916), 28 D.L.R. 769 (B.C. S.C). Cf. The J. G. White Engineering Co. et al. v. Canadian Car and Foundry Co. (1940), 43 Que. P.R. 419; Lampel v. Berger (1917), 38 D.L.R. 47 (Ont.).

158 [1915] , K.B. 857.

159 Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, 888.

160 [1942] 3 D.L.R. 54 (Sask. C.A.). See also Cantieri Riuniti Dell’ Adriatico di Monfaleone v. Gdynia Ameryka Linje Zeglugowe Spolka Akcyjna, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 491 (N.S.) where service ex juris was made in juris.

161 Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, 883.

162 For a special case where an enemy alien was sued in Alberta under conditions which compelled her to take action, see Reventlow v. Rural Mun. of Streamstown (1917), 37 D.L.R. 394 (Alta.).

163 Canadian Stewart Co. v. Perih (1916), 25 Que. K.B. 158.

164 (1915), 7 W.W.R. 1290 (B.C.S.C.).

165 Re Stahlwerk Becker A/G’s Patent, [1917] 2 Ch. 272.

166 Halsey v. Lowenfeld, [1916] 2 K.B. 707.

167 Robinson & Co. v. Continental Insurance Co. of Mannheim, [1915] 1 K.B. 155