[:en]In Garantie de construction résidentielle (GCR) v. Ewart, 2019 QCCS 40, Madam Justice Danielle Mayrand held that one party’s omission to deal with all components of the other’s claims did not deny the arbitrator jurisdiction to deal with all issues raised in the dispute. Despite the label used by one party to characterize its claim, Mayrand J. held that the arbitrator had correctly dealt with the true nature of the claims in the hearing administered by the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre (“CCAC”).
Continue reading “[:en]Québec – one party’s omission to respond fully to other’s claim does not limit scope of arbitration – #157[:]”
[:en]Alberta – willingness to undertake legislated arbitration option may impact court costs – #156[:]
[:en]In Boardwalk REIT Properties Holdings Ltd v. Condominium Corp No 0822896, 2019 ABQB 40, Mr. Justice Grant S. Dunlop reserved his decision on costs and invited the parties to refer to any proposals to arbitrate provided as a dispute resolution option. In doing so, Dunlop J. signalled to litigants the court’s willingness to adjust its own award of court costs by considering if either of the parties had proposed to engage in arbitration as authorized by the legislation applicable to their dispute. Continue reading “[:en]Alberta – willingness to undertake legislated arbitration option may impact court costs – #156[:]”
[:en]Ontario – standard of correctness applies to arbitrator’s decision on solicitor-client privilege – #155[:]
[:en]In Saskatchewan v. Cricket, 2019 ONSC 18, Mr. Justice Peter Bawden considered challenges to evidentiary decisions taken by the arbitrator regarding solicitor-client privilege, hearsay and the impact of a prior but quashed arbitral award between the same parties. In dismissing each challenge, Bawden J. provided helpful albeit brief guidance on how to deal with similar post-award challenges. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – standard of correctness applies to arbitrator’s decision on solicitor-client privilege – #155[:]”
[:en]Ontario – jurisdiction challenge must be raised early as preliminary objection, not as defence at merits stage – #154[:]
[:en]In FCA Canada Inc. v. Reid-Lamontagne, 2019 ONSC 364, Madam Justice Nancy J. Spies refused an application to set aside a final award challenged on the basis of an excess of jurisdiction, holding that the applicant had failed to raise the objection in a timely fashion. Though the applicant argued that it had raised the objection, Spies J. determined that it had done so as a substantive defence later on at the merits stage and not as a preliminary objection earlier on in the process. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – jurisdiction challenge must be raised early as preliminary objection, not as defence at merits stage – #154[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court rejects re-using arbitral awards against non-parties despite litigants’ flexibility – #153[:]
[:en]In Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701, Madam Justice Patricia C. Hennessy dismissed an attempt to re-use arbitral awards as evidence against litigants who were not parties to the related arbitrations. Despite a collaborative, flexible approach by the litigants to presenting sprawling, complex facts necessitating the use of extensive primary and secondary documentary sources as well as expert and community leaders testimony providing historical context, Hennessy J. drew limits to that collaborative flexibility and underscored the limited role arbitral awards play beyond the parties who, by contract, agreed to submit to and be bound by arbitration. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court rejects re-using arbitral awards against non-parties despite litigants’ flexibility – #153[:]”
[:en]Québec – award voided for providing insufficient reasoning and imposing unintelligible order – #152[:]
[:en]In 9264-3212 Québec inc. v. Moseka, 2018 QCCS 5286, Madam Justice Johanne Brodeur granted judicial review of an arbitral award because it was not executory. Despite applying a deferential standard of reasonable, Brodeur J. sent the parties back to arbitration because the specialized decision maker had omitted to articulate the industry standard he determined was breached and did not explain what result the party had to meet in order to comply with his order. Continue reading “[:en]Québec – award voided for providing insufficient reasoning and imposing unintelligible order – #152[:]”
[:en]Alberta – court reverses summary judgment order, refers parties to trial, suggests parties consider arbitration – #151[:]
[:en]In Prestige Granite & Marble Inc v. Maillot Homes Inc, 2018 ABQB 1040, Madam Justice Michele H. Hollins reversed a Master’s order granting summary judgment on the basis that court rules allowed parties to present new evidence on appeal of the order and, in doing so, “amplified” their case sufficiently to justify a trial on the merits. Hollins J. suggested that the parties consider “private arbitration” in lieu of continuing in court should settlement fail. The suggestion likely reflects the court’s perception that arbitration would provide a more suitable resolution of the issues still in dispute and would avoid the layers of appeals and compensate for the delays associated with amplifying one’s position. Continue reading “[:en]Alberta – court reverses summary judgment order, refers parties to trial, suggests parties consider arbitration – #151[:]”
[:en]B.C. – arbitrator’s decision on costs qualifies as an award enforceable as judgment/order of the court – #150[:]
[:en]In Sangha v. Goel, 2018 BCSC 2267, Mr. Chief Justice Christopher E. Hinkson qualified a costs award as an “award” under B.C.’s Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 55. The costs award issued as a distinct award following a partial award by the arbitrator and was based on a summary presentation of evidence based on an initial agreement by the parties but from which Respondents later unsuccessfully attempted to resile. Hinkson C.J. held that the delays and costs borne by Petitioners were significant reasons for granting Petitioners leave to enforce the award on arbitral costs but also refused to grant Petitioners their court costs due to their occasioning use of one (1) hour more than the time reserved because of same day filing of motion materials. Continue reading “[:en]B.C. – arbitrator’s decision on costs qualifies as an award enforceable as judgment/order of the court – #150[:]”
[:en]Ontario – leave to appeal on question of law waived when both parties fully argue issues in court – #149[:]
[:en]In O’Connell v. Awada, 2019 ONSC 273, Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman allowed Appellant to present his appeal on two (2) questions of law even though he had not sought or obtained leave to do so. Kershman J. held that, because both parties fully pleaded the issues regarding the questions of law, he waived the requirement for leave despite Respondent’s objections. Kershman J. also provided comment on the extent to which arbitrators ought to comment on evidence and demonstrate that they have heard the evidence. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – leave to appeal on question of law waived when both parties fully argue issues in court – #149[:]”
[:en]Ontario – determination of exceptions to mandatory stay are for court to make and not arbitrator – #148[:]
[:en]Ontario’s Court of Appeal in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1 determined that the arbitration agreements contained in service agreements between drivers and Uber qualified as illegal contracting out of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41 (“ESA”), and that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable and invalid. In doing so, the Court provided new guidance for drafting arbitration clauses applicable to non-employment contracts and to their enforceability. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – determination of exceptions to mandatory stay are for court to make and not arbitrator – #148[:]”