Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought Ontario recognition and enforcement of a New York judgment against the respondent, Harry Stinson.
   
• Stinson challenged enforcement on the ground that a promissory note and guarantee he signed were obtained through economic duress.
   
• Ontario courts apply the Pro Swing test, which requires a debt for a definite sum, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, that is final and conclusive.
   
• Recognized defences under Beals v. Saldanha are limited to fraud, denial of natural justice, and public policy, none of which Stinson raised.
   
• Applying the four-factor Kawartha test for economic duress, the court found Stinson had not established that he lacked any real choice but to sign.
   
• Costs and currency conversion also arose, with the court fixing costs at $19,000 and calculating the Canadian-dollar equivalent using the Royal Bank of Canada's exchange rate under section 121 of the Courts of Justice Act.
   

Facts of the case

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, a New York-registered law firm, applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for recognition and enforcement of a New York judgment against Harry Stinson. The underlying dispute traced back to a February 22, 2023 promissory note and guarantee, under which Stinson personally guaranteed legal fees owed by Buffalo Grand Hotel Inc. to the applicant and consented to have disputes resolved by the courts of New York State. Stinson did not dispute signing the note, but argued in his affidavit that it was signed under duress. He stated that on February 17, 2023, the applicant demanded $70,000 toward fees for examinations under oath scheduled for February 28, 2023, that a third party paid this amount on February 21, 2023, and that the note itself was sent and signed the next day, six days before the examinations were due to proceed. He further alleged that after signing, the applicant pressured him to accept a 12.5% success fee or make immediate payment. When the amount owed under the note went unpaid, the applicant sued in New York, personally served Stinson, and the parties reached a settlement in which Stinson and Buffalo Grand waived their defences, consented to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, and consented to judgment for the amounts owed plus interest, costs, and disbursements on a joint and several basis. The applicant agreed to a 60-day standstill on enforcement, and Stinson confirmed he had the opportunity to consult counsel and signed voluntarily. The resulting judgment was entered on May 8, 2024, with payment due by July 7, 2024; it was never paid, and the time to appeal has since passed. The source document states that Stinson advised the applicant he had retained counsel in August 2025, and that communication between counsel continued until May 2025 [sic — the source presents these two dates in this order, though May 2025 precedes August 2025].

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The promissory note and guarantee required Stinson to personally guarantee Buffalo Grand's legal fees and to consent to New York jurisdiction over any disputes, terms the settlement and resulting judgment later confirmed. On the enforcement side, the court applied section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, which gives the court discretion over costs, together with rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing the factors relevant to that discretion. The court also applied section 121 of the Courts of Justice Act, which sets out how a foreign-currency judgment is to be converted into Canadian dollars, generally requiring use of the exchange rate at a Schedule I bank on the first day it quotes a rate before payment is received, unless the court finds that approach inequitable, in which case another day may be used.

Reasoning and analysis

The court applied the test from Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC 52, under which a foreign judgment will be recognized and enforced where it is for a debt or definite sum, is final and conclusive, and was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, absent fraud, a violation of natural justice, or a breach of public policy. The court found this test satisfied: the New York judgment was for a definite sum, was final, and New York had a real and substantial connection to the dispute, given that Buffalo Grand was a New York corporation with property there, Stinson carried on business in the state through Buffalo Grand, and both parties had consented to New York's jurisdiction. Turning to the narrow defences recognized in Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, the court noted Stinson did not allege fraud, a denial of natural justice, or a public policy violation, and found no evidence supporting any of these. The court characterized Stinson's duress argument as directed at the signing of the promissory note rather than the judgment itself, and applied the two-part economic duress test from Kawartha Capital Corp v. 1723766 Ontario Limited, 2020 ONCA 763, requiring proof that Stinson faced pressure leaving him no real choice but to submit, and that the pressure was illegitimate. Assessing the four Kawartha factors, the court found Stinson had not protested at the time of signing, had the alternative of refusing and retaining new counsel, and took no steps afterward to avoid the note. The court further held that even accepting Stinson's account, the applicant's negotiation over legal fees was not illegitimate pressure, citing Taber v. Paris Boutique & Bridal Inc., 2010 ONCA 157. On costs, the court weighed the applicant's request for $25,000 against Stinson's suggested range of $12,000 to $15,000, applying the reasonableness principle from Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2009 ONCA 722, and Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, and found the time spent on the matter somewhat excessive. On currency conversion, the court considered the applicant's proposed use of the Bank of Canada's July 31, 2025 rate against the Royal Bank of Canada's rate on the day of the decision, and concluded that the statutory approach under section 121 was not shown to be inequitable to Stinson.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court ruled in favour of the applicant, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, recognizing and enforcing the New York judgment in Ontario. It fixed costs at $19,000, all-inclusive, payable by Stinson to the applicant within 30 days. For the underlying debt, stated in the judgment as US $189,876.86, the court applied the Royal Bank of Canada's exchange rate as of the date of the decision, ordering payment of $258,934.68 in Canadian dollars, while giving the applicant the option to seek a further hearing if it wished to contest the exchange rate used.