Beals v. Saldanha
Canada Supreme Court
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 2003 SCC 72 (2003)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
The Saldanhas (defendants) were Canadian residents and owners of a vacant lot in Florida. The Saldanhas sold the lot to the Bealses (plaintiffs). After a dispute arose, the Bealses sued the Saldanhas in Florida. The Saldanhas received notice of the Florida litigation and filed a statement of defenses to the initial complaint. The Bealses amended the complaint and gave notice to the Saldanhas of the amendments but the notice did not inform the Saldanhas of the consequences of not answering the amendments. The Saldanhas did not file defenses to the amendments. The Florida court entered a default judgment against the Saldanhas and awarded damages to the Bealses. The Bealses subsequently filed an action in Canada seeking to enforce the Florida default judgment. A Canadian lawyer advised the Saldanhas that the Florida default judgment was unenforceable in Canada. Relying on that legal advice, the Saldanhas decided not to challenge the Florida default judgment. The Canadian court refused to enforce the Florida default judgment and dismissed the action, finding that the assessment of damages involved fraud. The Bealses appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Major, J.)
Dissent (LeBel, J.)
Dissent (Binnie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
