327

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Committee on Arbitration Awards. CHAIRMAN—cowI originating summons, and then once he has given his leave that award is enforceable just the same as a Judgment of the High Court, or as an Order which is made by the High Court. The effect of it is that although it is a decree which is made by an arbitrator under the assent of both parties to the arbitration it becomes enforceable just like a judgment. The object of that, of course, is to simplify procedure, to save time, and to save expense. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Might I interrupt you to ask what is the procedure? You say that an award is enforceable as a judgment; to whom does a judgment go in this country—to the sheriff. CHAIRMAN : If he is to issue execution upon it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Would it be the same thing here ? CHAIRMAN : Yes; the same thing if you have an order of the judge. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : What is the order—just that it is enforceable? CHAIRMAN : Yes; the summons comes before him that the award should be enforced like a judgment under the Arbitration Act. Dr. FINDLAY : That is the rule in most of the oversea countries, and in most of the Canadian Provinces; for instance, it is the rule in two of the Eastern Provinces. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The rule varies very much in our Provinces, but I wanted just to understand the procedure here. CHAIRMAN: It does vary. Dr. FINDLAY : Our Act is the same as yours. CHAIRMAN : That proposal is only possible with regard to awards made in submission to arbitration which is made here and which is enforced here. Of course we cannot enforce an award in Canada any more than Canada can enforce an award here. The only possibility of putting it into effective practice then is to bring an action upon it. In all countries so far as I gather from the Reports that have been made—in fact I do not quite understand how it could be otherwise except tinder special legislation—if we in this country wished to enforce an award in any one of the Dominions we should have to bring an action upon that award in the Dominion in order to recover the money from the person against whom the award is made. Mr. FISHER : Then the action itself would have to determine whether you would get it ? CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. FISHER : You would have no distinct advantage in having the award ? CHAIRMAN : None, except that you have some advantage in having had the matter determined by the award, and bringing your action upon it. Of course time and money would be expended in the bringing of an action, and I think the great objection to having to bring an action is that it enables persons who do not mean to pay and do not want to pay, to raise all kinds of questions by means of chicanery or otherwise, so getting time and putting the other party to considerable expense. Both for commercial morality and, I think, on the

42—A. 4.