Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought enforcement of a Puerto Rican judgment against the respondent in Ontario.
   
• A prior endorsement had already found the respondent lacked notice of the Puerto Rican proceedings, though she had agreed to Puerto Rican jurisdiction under the contract.
   
• Two issues remained outstanding: whether to stay the Ontario enforcement judgment and how to resolve costs.
   
• Little progress had been made by the respondent toward pursuing a motion to set aside the Puerto Rican judgment.
   
• No evidence showed the applicant attempted to notify the respondent of the Puerto Rican proceedings despite having her contact information.
   
• Costs were ultimately declined for both parties in light of these notice failures.

Facts of the case

This endorsement follows a prior decision (2026 ONSC 3982) in which the court found that the respondent, Maria Alexandra Ontiveros, had no notice of the Puerto Rican proceedings brought against her, but had nonetheless agreed to Puerto Rican jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract. The court had concluded that the respondent would need to pursue any challenge to the Puerto Rican judgment in Puerto Rico itself, and that a judgment should issue in Ontario to enforce it. The court invited further submissions on two remaining questions: whether to temporarily stay the Ontario judgment to give the respondent time to pursue relief in Puerto Rico, and how costs should be allocated. This endorsement resolves both issues.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The endorsement does not cite specific legislation. The relevant contractual point, carried over from the prior decision, is that the respondent had agreed to Puerto Rican court jurisdiction for disputes arising under the contract, even though she had not received notice of the Puerto Rican proceedings themselves. The court also referenced the precedent in Marx v. Balak, 2008 BCSC 222, where a stay was similarly declined in comparable circumstances.

Reasoning and analysis

The court declined to stay the Ontario judgment, noting that beyond researching what steps she would need to take in Puerto Rico, the respondent had done little to actually advance a motion there. On costs, the court found it significant that the applicant had the respondent's email and physical addresses but presented no evidence of any attempt to notify her of the Puerto Rican proceedings by email, mail, or courier. The court reasoned that such an approach should be discouraged, and that declining costs to the applicant could help deter similar conduct in future cases. The court further observed that the applicant, having pursued the Puerto Rican proceeding while knowing the respondent resided in Ontario, should have anticipated the enforcement difficulties that would follow. Had proper notice been given, the court indicated it would have readily awarded costs of the Ontario enforcement proceeding to the applicant. Instead, the chosen approach produced a dispute centered on procedural notice issues rather than the merits.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court declined to grant a stay of the Ontario judgment enforcing the Puerto Rican judgment, meaning enforcement was permitted to proceed. While the applicant, Latino Wall Street, LLC, succeeded on the underlying application, the court declined to award it costs, finding instead that each party should bear its own costs given the respondent's lack of notice of the Puerto Rican proceedings. No monetary award or costs figure was granted to either party in this endorsement.