Enforcing a Canadian Court Judgment in Türkiye: Tenfiz, Reciprocity and Service on Turkish Defendants

It must first pass an enforcement action (tenfiz) before a Turkish court under Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK). This guide explains the conditions, how reciprocity is shown for the province that gave the judgment, why service by mail or courier on a Turkish defendant is a weak point, which documents to bring from Canada and how collection works once the Turkish court has ruled.

A Canadian company wins a money judgment in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against a Turkish buyer. An investor in Vancouver obtains judgment in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against a former business partner who has moved back to Istanbul. A family business in Calgary holds a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta against a debtor whose only real assets are an apartment in Antalya and a bank account in İzmir. In each case the judgment is valid in Canada. In none of them does it have direct effect in Türkiye.

Before a Turkish enforcement office will act on a Canadian judgment, a Turkish court must declare it enforceable in a procedure called tenfiz. There is no general treaty between Türkiye and Canada on the recognition and enforcement of court judgments, and neither state is a party to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The whole procedure therefore runs under Turkish statute: the Law on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, MÖHUK), Law No. 5718. Child support can be different: decisions from Manitoba and Ontario (since 1 February 2024) and British Columbia (since 1 March 2024), where Canada applies the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, can fall under that Convention, which MÖHUK Article 1(2) reserves.

This guide explains the conditions in that Law, how reciprocity is shown when the judgment comes from a Canadian province, why service of the Canadian claim on a Turkish defendant is often the weakest point, which documents to bring from Canada, and how collection works after the Turkish court rules. It ends with arbitral awards made in Canada and a comparison of the available routes. For the general framework that applies to every country, see our guide to enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye.

Why a Canadian judgment needs a Turkish enforcement decision

MÖHUK governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (Article 1(1)) and reserves the provisions of international treaties to which Türkiye is a party (Article 1(2)). With no general judgments treaty in place between Türkiye and Canada, the statute applies in full, subject to the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention for child support decisions from the Canadian provinces where it applies.

The core rule is Article 50(1). A judgment given by a foreign court in a civil case and final under the laws of that state can be executed in Türkiye only once a competent Turkish court has given an enforcement decision (tenfiz kararı). Article 50(2) adds that enforcement may also be sought for the parts of a foreign criminal judgment that concern personal rights.

Two points follow for Canadian creditors. First, finality is measured by the law of the place of judgment: a judgment that is still open to an ordinary appeal in the province that issued it is not ready for Türkiye. Second, the enforcement decision is the gateway. Once it is given, the foreign judgment is executed in the same way as a judgment of a Turkish court (Article 57(1)), through the ordinary enforcement offices.

The conditions in Article 54 of MÖHUK

Article 54(1) provides that the competent court grants enforcement within the following conditions:

• (a) Reciprocity. There must be a treaty based on reciprocity between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was given, or a provision of law or an actual practice (fiilî uygulama) in that state that makes it possible to enforce judgments of Turkish courts.
• (b) Jurisdiction. The statute joins two jurisdiction checks with “or” (veya), and each is a separate ground for refusal: the judgment must not concern a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and, if the defendant objects, it must not have been given by the court of a state that assumed jurisdiction although it had no real connection with the subject matter or the parties.
• (c) Public policy. The judgment must not be manifestly contrary to public policy.
• (ç) Right of defence. The condition is that the person against whom enforcement is sought has not objected in the Turkish court on the ground that, under the laws of the place of judgment, that person was not duly summoned to the court that gave the judgment, was not represented before it, or judgment was given in that person’s absence or by default contrary to those laws.

Not every condition works the same way. The exorbitant-jurisdiction limb of (b) applies only if the defendant objects, and (ç) turns on an objection by the debtor. Reciprocity in (a), exclusive jurisdiction in (b) and public policy in (c) are not tied to an objection.

Exclusive jurisdiction is not usually in play for a Canadian money judgment on a contract or a loan. It concerns matters Turkish law keeps for its own courts; a dispute over rights in rem in immovable property in Türkiye is an example, since Article 12(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) makes the court where the property lies mandatorily competent (kesin yetkilidir).

Reciprocity when the judgment comes from a Canadian province

Reciprocity is where Canadian files need the most preparation. Article 54(1)(a) refers to “the state where the judgment was given”. Canada is a federal state, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Canada is a provincial matter: each province and territory has its own rules. A Turkish judgment would have to be enforced under the rules of a particular province, so the reciprocity evidence should address the province whose court gave the judgment, not Canada in general.

What official sources show, at a high level:

• Quebec. Quebec’s rules are in Book Ten of the Civil Code of Québec (articles 3155 to 3168). Article 3155 provides that a decision rendered outside Québec is recognized and, where applicable, declared enforceable by the Québec authority, except in the cases it lists: among them, lack of jurisdiction of the foreign authority, a decision still subject to an ordinary remedy or not final or enforceable where it was rendered, a breach of the fundamental principles of procedure, and an outcome manifestly inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations. Reciprocity is not on that list, and article 3158 confines the Québec authority to verifying those requirements without examining the merits. That is the kind of provision of law Article 54(1)(a) refers to; whether it is shown in a given file is for the Turkish court to decide.
• Ontario. Ontario’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. R.5) provides for the registration of judgments from “reciprocating states”, and section 7 allows the Act to be extended only to other provinces and territories of Canada. A Turkish judgment is therefore outside that statute, and the way a Turkish money judgment would be treated in Ontario has to be shown by other means, normally a reasoned opinion from an Ontario lawyer.
• Other provinces and territories. The position must be shown for the province concerned, from its own legislation and an opinion of a lawyer licensed there.

The creditor should assemble this material before filing: the relevant provincial provisions with a certified Turkish translation, and an opinion on whether and how a Turkish money judgment could be enforced in that province. If the debtor contests reciprocity, that file is what the Turkish court will examine.

Recognition, as opposed to enforcement, does not require reciprocity. Article 58(1) excludes Article 54(1)(a) for recognition. That matters where a Canadian judgment is used only as conclusive evidence or as res judicata, and in family matters such as the recognition of a Canadian divorce in Türkiye.

For a child support decision from Manitoba, Ontario or British Columbia, first check whether the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention applies, because MÖHUK reserves treaty provisions (Article 1(2)) and that Convention has its own rules on the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions.

Service on a defendant in Türkiye: where Canadian judgments are most exposed

Canada (since 1 May 1989) and Türkiye (since 28 April 1972) are both parties to the Hague Service Convention of 1965. Türkiye’s declarations under that Convention, as published by the Hague Conference (HCCH), are short and they matter:

• Türkiye declares its opposition to the methods of service set out in Article 10. Article 10 covers sending judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad, service through judicial officers or other competent persons of the state of destination, and direct service by an interested person through such officers.
• Diplomatic or consular agents may serve documents under Article 8 only on their own nationals. A Canadian consulate in Türkiye cannot serve a Turkish company.
• Türkiye has also made declarations under Articles 15(2) and 16(3).

The main Convention route into Türkiye is therefore its Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice (Directorate General for Foreign Relations and EU Affairs). According to the practical information Türkiye has filed with the HCCH, where the documents are in Turkish or accompanied by a Turkish translation, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office serves them by post under Turkish domestic law, and service can then be made even against the addressee’s will. Without a translation, service proceeds under Article 5(2) of the Convention, and the addressee may refuse the documents. The Central Authority then completes a certificate stating the method, place and date of service and the person to whom the document was delivered (Convention, Article 6).

This is why service matters at the Turkish stage. Article 54(1)(ç) of MÖHUK asks whether the debtor was duly summoned under the laws of the place where the judgment was given, and provincial procedural rules deal with service in Convention states. Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, for example, require that a document served in a contracting state be served through that state’s central authority or in a manner that is permitted by the Convention and that would be permitted by the Ontario rules if the document were being served in Ontario (rule 17.05(3)). A statement of claim sent to Istanbul by registered mail or international courier bypasses the Central Authority and relies on direct delivery by post or courier, the kind of method covered by Türkiye’s objection to Article 10. If the debtor raises Article 54(1)(ç) in the Turkish enforcement action, the Canadian judgment is exposed on that condition, and the Turkish court decides the objection on the file.

Protection has to come early. If the Canadian action is still pending, serve the Turkish defendant through Türkiye’s Central Authority, with a Turkish translation, and keep the certificate of service.

Default judgments, summary judgments and the right to be heard

MÖHUK does not refuse enforcement simply because the Canadian judgment was given by default. The test in Article 54(1)(ç) is narrower: under the laws of the place of judgment, was the debtor duly summoned, was it represented, and if judgment was given in its absence, was that done in accordance with those laws? If the answer to any of these is no and the debtor objects on that ground in the Turkish court, the condition fails.

In practice:

• Default judgment after Convention service. Where the claim was served through Türkiye’s Central Authority and the defendant chose not to defend, the certificate of service is the natural evidence that the debtor was duly summoned.
• Default judgment without a certificate. Canada has declared under Article 15(2) of the Convention that its judges may give judgment under the conditions stated in Article 15. That provision allows judgment without a certificate of service if the document was transmitted by a Convention method, at least six months have passed and no certificate has been received despite every reasonable effort. Such a judgment may stand in Canada, but if the debtor objects in Türkiye that it was never summoned, the creditor has little to put before the Turkish court.
• Summary judgment after the defendant appeared. Where the defendant appeared and defended, the “not summoned or not represented” objection does not fit, because the defendant took part. The remaining questions are reciprocity, jurisdiction and public policy.
• Relief for the defendant in Canada. Article 16 of the Convention allows a judge to relieve a defendant who did not appear from the expiry of the time for appeal, if the defendant without fault did not learn of the claim or the judgment in time and has a prima facie defence on the merits. Canada has declared that such an application will not be entertained if filed after one year from the date of the judgment, except in exceptional cases determined by the rules of the court seized. Counsel for a Turkish debtor who learns late of a Canadian default judgment should keep this in view alongside the objections available in Türkiye.

Filing in Türkiye: court, petition, documents and security for costs

Court and venue (Article 51). The court of first instance (asliye mahkemesi) hears enforcement actions. The action is brought at the court of the debtor’s domicile in Türkiye, failing that its place of residence; if the debtor has neither in Türkiye, at a court in Ankara, Istanbul or İzmir.

Petition (Article 52). Anyone with a legal interest in enforcement may apply. The petition is filed with a copy for each opposing party and states: (a) the names and addresses of the applicant, the other party and any legal representatives and counsel; (b) the state and the court that gave the judgment, its date and number and a summary of it; (c) if enforcement is sought for part of the judgment only, which part.

Documents (Article 53). The petition is accompanied by (a) the original of the foreign judgment duly certified by the authorities of that country, or a copy certified by the court that gave it, with a certified translation; and (b) a document showing that the judgment is final, duly certified by the authorities of that country, with a certified translation.

Documents to obtain in Canada

1. A certified copy of the judgment from the court registry, with the reasons and any orders on costs and interest.
2. Proof of finality. There is no single Canadian “finality certificate”. Ask the court registry what it can issue to show that no appeal was filed within the time limit, or that appeals have been exhausted; an affidavit of the Canadian lawyer referring to the court record may support it.
3. An apostille. Canada has applied the Apostille Convention since 11 January 2024; Türkiye since 1985. Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan issue apostilles for their documents, and Global Affairs Canada issues them for federal documents and for documents from the other provinces and territories. Our guide on powers of attorney and apostilles from Canada explains the steps.
4. A Turkish translation. The Law requires a certified translation (onanmış tercüme); in practice the translation is made by a sworn translator and certified by a notary in Türkiye.
5. Proof of service in the Canadian action, ideally the Convention certificate issued through Türkiye’s Central Authority, and the record of any appearance by the defendant.
6. Reciprocity material for the province, as described above.

Security for costs (Article 48). Foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action, join one or start enforcement proceedings in a Turkish court must provide the security the court determines for the costs of the proceedings and the other side’s losses (Article 48(1)). The court exempts the claimant on the basis of reciprocity (Article 48(2)). No treaty exemption for Canadian claimants has been verified, so whether security is ordered is for the court to decide in the case. Article 48 speaks of foreign persons; a Turkish citizen applying in his or her own name is outside its wording.

The enforcement action: objections, decision and appeal

The petition is served on the debtor together with the hearing date, and the court decides under the rules of simple procedure (basit yargılama usulü) (Article 55(1)). If the debtor is abroad, this service is itself an international step.

The debtor may object only on the grounds that the conditions for enforcement are not met, that the foreign judgment has been satisfied in whole or in part, or that a reason preventing its execution has arisen (Article 55(2)). Disagreement with how the Canadian court assessed the facts or the law is not among those grounds.

The court may enforce the judgment in whole or in part, or refuse the application. The decision is written beneath the foreign judgment and sealed and signed by the judge (Article 56). Decisions granting or refusing enforcement may be appealed under the general rules, and the Law provides that the appeal stops execution (Article 57(2)). Until the enforcement decision can be executed, interim measures (below) are the tool that protects the creditor.

Recognition instead of enforcement. If the creditor needs the Canadian judgment only as conclusive evidence or res judicata, recognition is enough. It depends on the court finding that the judgment meets the conditions for enforcement, without the reciprocity condition (Article 58(1)), and the same procedure applies where an administrative act in Türkiye is to be based on a foreign judgment (Article 58(3)). The res judicata or conclusive-evidence effect of the foreign judgment takes effect from the moment it became final (Article 59).

After the Turkish decision: collection through the enforcement office

Once enforcement is granted, the Canadian judgment is executed as a Turkish judgment (Article 57(1)). Enforcement of a judgment may be requested from any enforcement office (İİK Article 34) and begins when the judgment is lodged with the office (Article 35).

For a money judgment, the enforcement office serves an enforcement order (icra emri) on the debtor. The order states the kind and amount of what was awarded and requires payment within seven days; it warns that forced enforcement will follow unless the debtor brings a decision staying enforcement, and that the debtor must declare its assets within that period under Article 74 (İİK Article 32). Within seven days of service the debtor may apply to the enforcement court claiming that the debt is time-barred, has been deferred or has been discharged; if the claim of deferral or discharge is proved by a document drawn up ex officio or duly certified by the competent authorities, or acknowledged before the enforcement office, the enforcement court or another court, enforcement is stayed (İİK Article 33(1)).

From there the usual collection tools apply: asset searches through the National Judiciary Network (UYAP), attachment of real estate and vehicles, and garnishment notices to banks and customers of the debtor. Our guide to debt collection and enforcement in Türkiye gives the overall picture.

Interim protection. Because the enforcement action and any appeal take time, a creditor may consider precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz). A creditor of a money debt that is due and not secured by a pledge may have the debtor’s movable and immovable assets, receivables and other rights attached as a precaution (İİK Article 257(1)). The creditor must present evidence that satisfies the court about the claim and, where necessary, the grounds for attachment (Article 258(1)), and it is liable for the losses of the debtor and third parties if the attachment proves unjustified, giving security for that liability (Article 259(1)). See our guide on interim attachment for foreign creditors.

Arbitral awards made in Canada

If the contract had an arbitration clause and the award was made in Canada, the route is different. Canada and Türkiye are both parties to the New York Convention of 1958. Türkiye applies it on the basis of two declarations: only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state, and only to disputes arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Turkish law. Canada is a contracting state, so an award made in Canada meets the first declaration.

MÖHUK reserves treaty provisions (Article 1(2)), and its own rules on foreign arbitral awards (Articles 60 to 63) describe the Turkish procedure. The application is made to the court of first instance of the place agreed in writing by the parties; without such an agreement, to the court of the debtor’s domicile in Türkiye, failing that its residence, and failing that the place where assets subject to enforcement are located (Article 60(2)). The petition attaches the arbitration agreement and the award, in original or certified copy, with certified translations (Article 61(1)), and the court applies Articles 55 to 57 by analogy (Article 61(2)).

Under the Convention, the party resisting enforcement must prove one of the grounds in Article V(1): incapacity or an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present its case, an award beyond the submission, irregular composition or procedure, or an award not yet binding, set aside or suspended. The court may also refuse enforcement if the subject matter is not arbitrable under Turkish law or the award is contrary to Turkish public policy (Article V(2)). The reciprocity test of MÖHUK Article 54(1)(a) is written for court judgments; for awards, reciprocity is met through Türkiye’s declaration when the award was made in a contracting state. Our guide on enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye covers the procedure in detail.

Canadian judgment, Canadian award or a new action in Türkiye

A new action in Türkiye is not an open alternative once a Canadian judgment exists on the same claim. The effect of that judgment as res judicata in Türkiye itself depends on recognition (Articles 58(1) and 59), so the choice of route needs advice on the specific file. Exporters who do not yet have a judgment will find the options compared in our guide for Canadian exporters recovering unpaid invoices from Turkish buyers.

Currency, interest and timing

Currency. Canadian judgments are usually expressed in Canadian dollars. MÖHUK has no rule converting the amount into Turkish lira: the Turkish court rules on the judgment as given, in whole or in part (Article 56). How the amount is stated and converted at the enforcement office is a point to settle when the enforcement file is opened.

Interest. If the Canadian judgment awards interest, make sure the judgment or a certified court record states the rate, the amount on which it runs and the start date. The petition must state any part of the judgment for which enforcement is sought (Article 52(1)(c)), and the court may grant enforcement in part (Article 56). Interest that cannot be read from the documents is harder to put before the Turkish court.

Timing. No duration can be promised. The main variables are whether the debtor can be served in Türkiye (Article 55(1)), whether reciprocity or service is contested, and whether the decision is appealed, since the appeal stops execution (Article 57(2)).

A checklist for Canadian creditors

1. Confirm that the judgment is final under the law of the province that gave it (Article 50(1)).
2. Check how the claim was served on the Turkish defendant, and collect the certificate of service or the record of the defendant’s appearance (Article 54(1)(ç)).
3. Prepare the reciprocity material for that province (Article 54(1)(a)).
4. Order a certified copy of the judgment and a finality document from the registry, then the apostille (Article 53).
5. Identify the debtor’s domicile or residence in Türkiye to fix the court (Article 51), and the assets to target afterwards.
6. Consider precautionary attachment while the action runs (İİK Articles 257 to 259).
7. Allow for security for costs if the court orders it (Article 48).

Working with Lex Lata from Canada

Lex Lata acts for creditors in Canada in enforcement actions before Turkish courts and in the collection that follows. The work is done remotely and in English: the client obtains the certified judgment, the finality document and the apostille in Canada and signs a power of attorney before a notary there, and Lex Lata handles the translations, the petition, the hearings and the enforcement file in Türkiye. Lex Lata also advises Turkish debtors served with Canadian claims. For other Canadian matters, start from our guide for Canadians with a legal matter in Türkiye, or write to us through the contact page.