## Facts

- Peter Restivo hired Weir Foulds LLP, an Ontario, Canada law firm, to assist with a prospective real estate development.
- A dispute arose when Restivo refused to pay Weir Foulds’ legal fees.
- Weir Foulds sued Restivo for unpaid fees in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
- In the Canadian case, the parties agreed to proceed by summary trial before a judge rather than a jury.
- In the summary trial, both sides had the opportunity to present evidence, challenge the other side’s evidence, and present oral argument.
- The Ontario court entered a money judgment in favor of Weir Foulds (2009).
- Weir Foulds sought to enforce the Ontario judgment in Ohio by filing a notice of filing the foreign judgment in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas (April 22, 2010).
- The Ohio trial court later granted Weir Foulds leave to file an amended notice (February 16, 2012), and Weir Foulds filed its amended notice (March 5, 2012).
- Restivo opposed recognition and filed a combined motion styled as a motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for summary judgment, and motion to disregard and not recognize the amended notice of filing foreign judgment.
- Restivo argued, among other things, that the Ontario judgment was not properly authenticated, that a judge-tried summary proceeding without a jury violated due process and Ohio public policy, and that the choice of summary trial reflected favoritism toward Weir Foulds.
- The trial court denied Restivo’s combined motion (January 2, 2013) and recognized the Canadian judgment; Restivo appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the documentation attached to the amended notice sufficiently authenticated the Ontario judgment for recognition and enforcement in Ohio.
2. Whether Ohio should refuse recognition because the Ontario judgment resulted from a judge-tried summary trial without a jury, allegedly violating due process or Ohio public policy.
3. Whether Restivo’s claims of favoritism or bias in the Ontario proceeding provided a basis to deny recognition.

## Decision

- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.
- The court held that the Ontario judgment was sufficiently authenticated for purposes of the Ohio recognition/enforcement proceeding.
- The court rejected the argument that the lack of a jury in the Ontario summary trial, standing alone, required nonrecognition on due-process or public-policy grounds.
- The court found no showing that the Ontario tribunal or process was biased or unfair so as to justify denying recognition.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio may recognize and enforce a foreign-country money judgment when the foreign proceeding provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial tribunal, even if the foreign procedure differs from Ohio practice.
- A foreign judgment is not rendered unenforceable in Ohio merely because the foreign court used a judge-tried procedure rather than a jury trial, particularly where the parties agreed to that procedure and participated in it.
- Public-policy objections to recognition are construed narrowly; differences in procedural rules generally do not establish that a foreign judgment is repugnant to Ohio public policy.
- Authentication objections do not defeat recognition where the filed materials sufficiently establish the judgment’s existence and contents and the objecting party shows no meaningful defect calling the judgment’s authenticity into question.
- Allegations of favoritism or bias must be supported by facts in the record; unsupported accusations are not enough to deny recognition.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed recognition of Weir Foulds’ Ontario fee judgment against Restivo because the judgment was sufficiently authenticated and resulted from a process that gave both parties a fair chance to present and challenge evidence, and neither the absence of a jury nor unsupported claims of favoritism justified refusing recognition in Ohio.


Weir Foulds LLP v. Restivo, 2014 WL 1345497 (2014)