Arbitration Matters

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Québec – Filing an action is not a waiver to arbitrate by Plaintiffs – #900

In Gauvin v. SBYC1935 Inc., 2025 QCCS 11, the Court granted an application by the Plaintiffs to have their own action stayed and referred to arbitration. The Defendant contested the application, arguing waiver of arbitration and tardiness in the filing of the application to stay, as the statutorily prescribed deadline to seek a stay was well past. The Defendant also argued the application was dilatory and an abuse of process by the Plaintiffs. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence of waiver and, noting that the deadline to seek a stay is not strict, it exercised its discretion to relieve the Plaintiffs’ delay.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Ontario – More efficient expert determination process to proceed ahead of litigation – #899

The decision in CLEAResult Canada Inc. v. Santomero, 2024 ONSC 6054 reinforces the principle that courts will generally uphold private dispute resolution mechanisms unless there is prima facie evidence that the process is fundamentally flawed (see para. 67). Here, the court held that the more expeditious, efficient and simple process before an accounting expert (BDO Canada LLP) to determine the Reverse Earn-out Amount in an M&A dispute was to proceed in tandem with other litigation between the parties, and was not to be held up by that litigation.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Ontario – Award set aside where one of three arbitrators biased – #898

Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v The United Mexican States, 2025 ONCA 82 is the second recent Ontario decision (after Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839 on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias of an arbitrator, which arbitration practitioners have been awaiting. In this decision, there was no challenge to the finding in the Court below that the conduct of one of the arbitrators on a panel of three met the test for reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant argued that the judge below was wrong to exercise her discretion to not set aside the award. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award. It found that it was impossible to determine whether one arbitrator’s bias affected the outcome. Reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the arbitrator is such a serious breach of procedural fairness that the award must be set aside, even if it requires a re-hearing of the arbitration.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Ontario – Natural justice does not require second opportunity to make submissions – #897

In Edenrock Holdings Inc. v. Moscone, 2025 ONSC 32, the Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, or grant leave to appeal, with respect to a claimed breach of natural justice, the supposed improper re-opening of earlier decisions, or the alleged apprehension bias of the Arbitrator who issued the Award. The Court found that there was no denial of natural justice when the Arbitrator ruled on a matter in respect of which the Applicants did not make submissions because they argued that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. They argued they should have been given a separate opportunity after the Arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Alberta – Arbitration agreement did not bind non-signatory beneficiary under container contract – #896

In Husky Oil Operations Limited v Technip Stone & Webster Process Technology Inc, 2024 ABCA 369, the Court found that a non-signatory beneficiary under a contract was not bound by an arbitration agreement contained in it. The Court found the arbitration agreement did not contain the “clear and explicit language” it deemed necessary to bind the non-signatory.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

B.C. – Court finds pre-condition to competence-competence – #895

The competence-competence principle is well established in Canadian law. It requires that issues relating to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction are generally first to be determined by the arbitrator instead of the court. In ONE Lodging Holdings LLC v American Hotel Income Properties REIT (GP) Inc., 2024 BCSC 2179, the Chambers Judge identified what amounts to a pre-condition, or exception, to the application of the competence-competence principle beyond those previously recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34 (“Dell”) and Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16. Those recognized exceptions are: (1) where the jurisdictional issue is a pure question of law or a question of mixed fact and law requiring only a cursory review of the documentary record, or (2) where there is a “real prospect” that the arbitrator may not be able to resolve the jurisdictional challenge due to practical barriers. Here, the Chambers Judge found that the competence-competence principle also does not apply when there is a dispute as to the existence of an arbitration agreement, as opposed to a dispute about the validity or scope of an existing arbitration agreement.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Ontario – Breach of arbitration clause gives rise to cause of action – #894

In Fowlie et al v Wrestling Canada Lutte et al, 2024 ONSC 7196 (“Fowlie”), the Court considered the appeal of a motion judge’s order declining to strike a breach of contract claim made by a sports dispute resolution expert (“Expert”) against Wresting Canada Lutte (“WCL”). The Expert claimed that WCL had breached their contract by failing to engage in a contractual dispute resolution process before WCL terminated the contract without cause. The dispute resolution clause in the parties’ contract included the option to refer disputes to arbitration. The Court granted the appeal and struck the Expert’s claim. The Court held that the dispute resolution clause only applies when a “dispute” arises. Because there was no dispute as between the Expert and WCL about the validly of the without-cause termination while the contract was in force, there was no “dispute” to which to apply the dispute resolution clause. This decision is surprising in view of the separability principle that arbitration agreements survive contract termination. Arbitration jurisprudence suggests that the arbitration agreement in the contract between WCL and the Expert should have been treated as an independent agreement that survived termination of the main contact.

February 7, 2025February 25, 2025

Federal – Binding Mediation not Arbitration – #893

In RS Marine Ltd. v. M/V Terre Neuvas (Ship), 2024 FC 1825, the Court was tasked with considering whether to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration in a dispute arising from a joint venture agreement between the plaintiffs—RS Marine Ltd. (“RSM”) and Murphy Marine Ltd. (“MML”)—and the French-based defendant SPM Ocean SAS (“SPM”). The key issue before the Court was whether a dispute resolution clause in the subject agreement required the parties to arbitrate their disputes. Relatedly, the Court had to consider if it had the authority to rule on this point or if it ought to be left to an arbitrator to rule on their own jurisdiction.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Alberta – Court rejects Ontario approach to stays of enforcement – #892

In Inter Pipeline Ltd v Teine Energy Ltd, 2024 ABKB 740 (“Inter Pipeline”), the Court set out the three-part test a party must meet to obtain a stay of enforcement of a domestic arbitration award in Alberta, rejecting as “not principled” the two-part test that applies in Ontario. The Court also addressed the argument that refusing a sealing order in these circumstances would put a chill on challenges to arbitral awards.

January 28, 2025January 31, 2025

International – Agreement to Arbitration and Enforcement Jurisdiction a Package – #891

In Republic of India c. CCDM Holdings, 2024 QCCA 1620 the Court was asked to determine three appeals relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards in the context of: (1) both the commerciality exception and waiver in the State Immunity Act; (“SIA”) (2) seizure before judgment in escrow of sums held by the Montreal-headquartered International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) for the benefit of two Indian state entities before the question of their immunity had been decided on the merits; and (3) the temporal scope of provincial legislation passed in response to said seizures at the IATA. The Court concluded that: (1) India had waived immunity under the SIA by becoming a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) and by agreeing to arbitration under the 1998 India-Mauritius bilateral investment treaty (“India-Mauritius BIT”); (2) the first-instance court had not erred in authorizing ex parte seizure before judgment in advance of the question of immunity being decided on the merits; and (3) the provincial legislation was effective retroactively to the effective date given therein but no further back in time – the seizure of sums held by the IATA prior to this date remained untouched by the legislation.