Arbitration Matters

January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

British Columbia – Court dismisses review of leave decision finding no extricable error of law – #933

In Bear Mountain Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2025 BCCA 368, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed a review application from a Chambers Judge’s decision refusing leave to appeal an arbitral award under subsection 59(4) of B.C.’s Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2 [Act]. The Court found no error in the Chambers Judge’s conclusion that the eight grounds the applicant raised concerned questions of mixed fact and law, which cannot be appealed under the Act.

January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

Alberta – Tribunal not functus officio when issuing award after final award – #932

In Lawrence v. Wood, 2025 ABKB 594, the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal an award of an arbitral tribunal, or alternatively, to set it aside. The Applicants argued that that the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction when it issued an award stating that a prior award was to be paid jointly and severally. The Court disagreed and held that the tribunal still had jurisdiction to make this clarification because this issue was dealt with “implicitly” in the first award, or alternatively, it was a new issue that was not before it when the first award was issued.

January 19, 2026January 19, 2026

Québec – New small claims arbitration in Québec – #931

In Multi Chariots Élévateurs inc. v. 9191-0216 Québec inc., 2025 QCCQ 6048, the Court granted the Defendant’s application to annul the arbitration award rendered in a small claims arbitration process due to non-compliance with the applicable procedure and violation of the Defendant’s right to be heard; the Defendant had no notice of the arbitration. Small claims arbitration in Quebec, as discussed in this decision, is a new procedure resulting from the coming into force of the Regulation respecting mediation and arbitration of small claims, C-25.01, r. 0.6.1. This regulation stipulates that a claim of less than $5,000 brought before the Court of Quebec Small Claims Division shall be referred to arbitration (at no cost) after mandatory mediation has failed to resolve the matter. The Rules provide for a specific arbitration procedure, requiring the state- appointed arbitrator to expressly validate the parties’ consent to proceed by way of arbitration, or the matter will proceed in the courts.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Chris Reflects (2025) – On Court finding that 30-day deadline under Arbitration Act applies to cross-appeals – #930

In Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 402, the Court held that the 30-day time limit in s. 60(1) of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 (“Arbitration Act”) applies to all appeals from arbitral awards, including cross-appeals. The Court quashed the application of the respondents (“TDMC”) for leave to file a cross-appeal outside that statutory period. It rejected an interpretation that would have allowed reliance on the 15-day cross-appeal timeline in the Court of Appeal Rules(the “Rules”). In doing so, the Court underscored the jurisdictional primacy of the Arbitration Act over procedural rules but urged the Legislature to consider amending the Arbitration Act to provide for a separate timeline to file a cross-appeal to address practical concerns.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Lindsay Reflects (2025) – On Third Parties in Arbitration – #929

Issues related to the involvement of third parties in arbitration can be particularly challenging in practice given that few Canadian court decisions address this topic. The purpose of this blog is to address the following three key issues related to third parties in arbitration:

Compelling third parties to arbitrate;
Joinder of third parties and consolidation; and
Obtaining evidence from third parties in arbitration.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Timothy Reflects (2025) – The (Sometimes) Long Tail of Disclosure Disputes – #928

Document production is a third rail to many arbitration practitioners, and not a likely topic for an annual reflection blog! The risk of provoking memories (possibly distant, but still visceral) of sifting through dusty boxes or their digital equivalent may be, for many potential commentators, too great. Privilege logs, relevance, and redactions, oh my!

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Philippe’s Reflections (2025): Québec courts find exceptions to the competence-competence principle – #927

In 2025, Québec courts have grappled with the exceptions to the competence-competence principle. It requires that any challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction must be resolved first by the arbitrator. Competence-competence has long been enshrined in the Model Law and New York Convention and is codified in Québec at art. 632 C.p.c. Its exceptions have been established by case law, but the practical application of what constitutes a “superficial analysis of the evidence on the record” allowing a court to rule directly on a mixed question or law and fact rather than referring the matter to the arbitrator has resulted in different outcomes in 2025. As set out below, courts often apply the competence-competence principle, or one if its exceptions, by stating that either a superficial analysis is sufficient – or not – to resolve the matter, but without explaining their reasoning as to how this conclusion is reached.

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Stephanie’s Reflections (2025): The Battle of the Standards of Review – #926

The standard of review for an appeal of a commercial arbitration award has been a topic of debate since the release of the administrative law decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Since then, lower courts in Canada have grappled with two opposite interpretations: the first, that the standard of review analysis in Vavilov applies to commercial arbitrations, and the second, that the standard of review for commercial arbitration awards is reasonableness, as established in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva] and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 [Teal Cedar].

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Rebecca’s Reflections (2025): Vento and the Hard-Line Consequences of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – #925

Over the last couple of years, arbitration practitioners across the country have had their eyes on the Ontario courts, which have considered several cases on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias. For this reason, I’ve chosen to focus on Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82, as a year-end reflection for 2025. Vento is an important reminder of the centrality of arbitrator independence to the institution of arbitration, and how its absence (whether real or perceived) can crumble the foundation of the arbitration process.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

BC – BPCPA amendments prohibiting arbitration agreements in consumer contracts retrospective not retroactive – #924

In Vandenbosch v Rogers Communications Canada Inc, 2025 BCSC 1199, the Court granted both defendants’ applications to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration. The stay against the primary defendant was granted, even though the arbitration clause was contained in a consumer contract. The Court considered recent amendments to BC’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c. 2 (“BPCPA”) prohibiting arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, which came into force during a continuance of the hearing of the defendants’ stay applications. The Court found that the amendments had a retrospective effect on future disputes arising under contracts concluded prior to the amendments, but not a retroactive effect on disputes arising from facts occurring prior to the amendments. Accordingly, the BPCPA amendmentsdid not apply to the plaintiff’s action, which was based on claims that arose before the amendments were passed. Therefore, the Court granted the stay of the court proceedings. The Court also stayed claims raised against a second defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, on the basis that these claims were based on the same factual matrix as the claims formulated against the primary defendant, which was a party to the arbitration clause.