Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• GoDaddy sought retraction of a default judgment rendered against it on October 23, 2024, on the ground that it had no knowledge of the proceedings before July 29, 2025.
• Validity of the international notification was at issue, specifically whether postal service to GoDaddy's Arizona establishment complied with the Hague Service Convention without requiring prior judicial authorization.
• Lack of fault was a central condition: the court assessed whether GoDaddy's failure to respond to the claim was attributable to any negligence or dilatory conduct on its part.
• Evidence of GoDaddy's internal protocol for handling legal notices — including a sworn declaration by Samuel Kitchens — supported the conclusion that the company likely never received the originating demand.
• Timeliness of the retraction application was examined under both the 30-day signification rule and the one-year deadline applicable to default judgments following international notification.
• Several serious defences were identified by GoDaddy, including a jurisdictional objection, a prescription argument, a liability limitation clause, and a dispute over the contracting parties' identities.

Facts of the case

Terrains IFD inc. (Terrains) is a company involved in real estate investments. GoDaddy inc. (GoDaddy) specializes in domain name registration and web hosting. In 2012, Terrains purchased domain names from GoDaddy. In 2020, those domain names were stolen. On June 29, 2023, Terrains filed an originating application against GoDaddy in connection with the 2020 events, alleging contractual faults that caused damages of $906,064.39. On July 10, 2023, Terrains notified GoDaddy of the application by mail addressed to GoDaddy's establishment at 2155 E GoDaddy Way, Tempe, Arizona, without having first obtained judicial authorization for a special mode of service. GoDaddy never responded. A default judgment was rendered against GoDaddy on October 23, 2024, condemning it to pay Terrains $906,064.39 plus interest and an additional indemnity from September 21, 2020. GoDaddy learned of the judgment on July 29, 2025, when a California attorney acting for Terrains demanded compliance with the judgment. GoDaddy filed its retraction application on August 14, 2025, and the matter was heard on May 19, 2026.

Contractual and procedural terms at issue

Several contractual provisions formed the basis of GoDaddy's proposed defences. The terms and conditions of the parties' agreement were relied upon to raise a jurisdictional objection to the competence of the Superior Court, a prescription argument grounded in Arizona law as the applicable law, and a limitation of liability clause restricting the quantum of recoverable damages. The terms and conditions also gave rise to a challenge regarding the identity of the contracting parties, as GoDaddy argued that the parties to the proceedings were not the same as those who had entered into the contractual relationship.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied Articles 494 and 495 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.), which govern retraction of default judgments rendered following international notification. Under Article 495(2) C.p.c., a party that defaulted in responding to an internationally notified claim may seek retraction within one year of the judgment date, provided it demonstrates — without fault on its part — that it had no timely knowledge of the proceedings or the decision, and that its defences are not entirely without merit.

On the question of timeliness, the court found that all applicable deadlines were met. GoDaddy learned of the judgment on July 29, 2025, filed its retraction application on August 14, 2025 — within the required 30 days — and the application was presented within one year of the October 23, 2024 judgment.

On the absence of fault and knowledge, the court accepted that GoDaddy, given its volume of international litigation, had established and systematically applied an internal protocol for processing legal notices received by mail, routing them to a designated "summons" inbox for follow-up by the legal team. The court found it improbable that GoDaddy, had it received the demand, would have failed to respond given its consistent practice of following up on all judicial claims. The Canada Post delivery confirmation relied upon by Terrains was found insufficient to establish actual receipt, as it did not specify what was delivered, whether the item was handed to anyone, or to whom — and no acknowledgment of receipt appeared in the record. The court further noted that GoDaddy never received the judgment itself, and no notice of judgment from the court registry appeared in the file. No negligence, contempt of court, or dilatory conduct was attributed to GoDaddy.

On the mode of notification, the court found — though the point was ultimately without effect given the foregoing conclusions — that postal notification to GoDaddy's Arizona address was valid under Article 494 C.p.c. and the Hague Convention of November 15, 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Both the United States and Canada are parties to the Convention; the claim was a judicial document transmitted abroad in a civil or commercial matter; GoDaddy's address was known; and the United States has not opposed postal service under Article 10(a) of the Convention. Relying on Riddle c. Ivari, 2026 CSC 9, and Droit de la famille — 192513, 2019 QCCA 2139, the court confirmed that when the Convention applies, its methods of service are mandatory and no special judicial authorization under Article 112 C.p.c. is required. Finally, the court was satisfied that GoDaddy had raised serious defences, including the jurisdictional objection, prescription, the liability limitation clause, the issue of the proper contracting parties, the absence of fault on GoDaddy's part in the domain name theft, and duplication of damages.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted GoDaddy's retraction application in its entirety. The judgment of October 23, 2024 — which had condemned GoDaddy to pay Terrains $906,064.39 plus interest and an additional indemnity from September 21, 2020 — was retracted. The court ordered the resumption of proceedings at the pleading stage, authorized GoDaddy to file a response within 10 days, declared that the proceedings must continue in accordance with applicable procedural rules and timelines, and awarded costs against Terrains. The successful party was GoDaddy; no monetary amount was awarded in its favour, as the retraction simply restored the matter to the litigation stage.