Julie Hopkins, Author at Arbitration Matters

September 12, 2023September 8, 2023

B.C. – Arbitration clause in contract of adhesion not unconscionable/against public policy – #772

In Williams v. Amazon.com Inc., 2023 BCCA 314 the Court upheld a partial stay of a proposed class action in favour of arbitration. It found that the Chambers Judge did not err when she concluded that an arbitration clause that formed part of a contract of adhesion was not unconscionable or against public policy. In doing so, the Court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 (“Ledcor”) on the issue of the applicable standard of review. In Ledcor, the Supreme Court determined that correctness standard applies when reviewing the interpretation of standard form contracts. Here, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that a deferential standard was applicable because of the highly contextual and fact specific analysis required for determining unconscionability/public policy issues. The fact that a contract of adhesion was involved did not change that conclusion. The Court also distinguished this case from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”), where the Supreme Court found an arbitration clause in a contract of adhesion invalid on the basis of unconscionability and, in concurring reasons, as against public policy. The Court distinguished Uber because of, among other things, the “profound” differences that it noted in the two cases between the arbitration clauses at issue and the vulnerability of the plaintiffs.

July 20, 2023July 17, 2023

Ontario – When is an appeal of a stay decision barred? – #757

In Leon v Dealnet Capital Corporation, 2023 ONSC 3657, the Appellant, John Leon, appealed an order that stayed his action for breach of an employment contract in favour of arbitration, pursuant to section 7(1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (“Arbitration Act”). Section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act provides that there is no appeal from stay decisions under section 7. However, the Appellant argued that section 7(6) did not apply in this case based on the recent decision of Goberdan v. Knights of Columbus, 2023 ONCA 327 (“Goberdan”) and the line of cases cited therein. Those cases stand for the proposition that if there is no arbitration agreement, the Arbitration Act does not apply and section 7(6) does not bar an appeal. In Goberdan, the motions judge concluded that there was no arbitration agreement because there had been no consideration for the contracts and therefore no contracts. As there was no arbitration agreement, the Court of Appeal found that the Arbitration Act including section 7(6) did not apply to bar the appeal. Here, it was argued that section 7(6) did not apply because the employment agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause, were void ab initio because the contract contracted out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000 c. 41 (“ESA”) contrary to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1 (“Heller CA”). Heller CA held, among other things, that an arbitration clause in an agreement between a presumed employer and employee was invalid as it constituted an illegal contracting out of the ESA.

May 11, 2023May 8, 2023

Ontario – No appeal where parties agree dispute “finally settled” by arbitration – #737

In Baffinland Iron Mines LP v. Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C., 2023 ONCA 245, Baffinland Iron Mines LP (“BIM”) appealed a decision of Justice Laurence A. Pattillo dismissing its application for leave to appeal an arbitral award. Justice Pattillo had dismissed the application on the basis that the relevant arbitration agreements precluded appeals. BIM then sought to appeal that decision. Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C (“TEBC”) moved to quash the appeal on the basis that there is no right to appeal from a denial of leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to quash, holding that BIM’s appeal fell within a “narrow category of cases” that are an exception to the rule that there is no right to appeal from a denial of leave to appeal. Those are ones where it is alleged, as here, that the application judge mistakenly declined jurisdiction to consider the leave issues. The appeal itself, however, was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the application judge’s interpretation of the arbitration agreements was correct. The Court concluded, among other things, that in the dispute resolution clause the phrase “finally settled” (used in relation to an arbitration) meant the same as the phrase “final and binding” (used in relation to decisions of a Dispute Arbitration Board, the “DAB”). Both resulted in there being no further recourse from the arbitral award by way of appeal.

March 27, 2023March 27, 2023

B.C. – The sensitive issue of adverse credibility findings and requests for accommodation – #722

Campbell v The Bloom Group, 2023 BCCA 84 raises a point of procedural fairness of interest to all decision makers: the importance of being mindful that adverse credibility findings not be influenced by requests for witness accommodation made either for disability or analogous reasons. Here, in obiter, the Court of Appeal noted that, as the Arbitrator had not erred in his negative credibility findings based on the many other reasons he found to disbelieve the Appellant’s evidence, it was unnecessary for him to comment on the fact that he also doubted the truthfulness of the Appellant’s evidence as to her need for accommodation based on disability. Decision makers should try to avoid even the appearance of adverse credibility findings being based on generalities or accommodations sought.

February 13, 2023February 10, 2023

Manitoba – Vavilov inapplicable to arbitration appeals – #709

In Christie Building Holding Company, Limited v. Shelter Canadian Properties Limited, 2022 MBKB 239, Christie Building Holding Company, Limited (“Christie”), applied for leave to appeal two arbitral awards under section 44 of the Manitoba Arbitration Act, CCSM c. A120. Christie asserted six separate grounds for leave to appeal, one of which consisted of four alleged errors of contractual interpretation. It also argued that a portion of the main award should be set aside because: the respondent did not comply with the Arbitration Agreement on issues of document production; that it was not given a fair opportunity to examine parties; and the arbitrator relied on case law not cited by the parties. Chief Justice Joyal dismissed all applications. In holding that none of Christie’s arguments for leave to appeal gave rise to a question of law of arguable merit, he considered the applicable standard of review. He found that “the standard of review on which the merits of this appeal would have to be judged, assuming leave was granted, is reasonableness. Until the Supreme Court of Canada has answered the question of what effect, if any, Vavilov has on Teal Cedar and Sattva, those authorities remain good law and are binding on this court” (paragraph 95). He also stated that if the applicable standard of review was, in fact, correctness, he would have still denied leave as the incomplete record from the arbitration compromised his ability to conduct a meaningful review, even for the narrow purpose of assessing leave. He held it would, therefore, be “unfair to grant leave and proceed with an appeal when a proper and meaningful review would ultimately be impossible” (paragraph 102). This case summary will focus on the analysis of the applicable standard of review.

January 31, 2023January 26, 2023

Alberta – Power to prevent “manifestly unfair treatment” not power to stay arbitration – #706

In IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc. v Edmonton (City), 2022 CarswellAlta 1805, the applicants, IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc. and a related party (“IBI”), applied to stay an arbitration commenced by the City of Edmonton in favour of court proceedings. Although there is no express power to stay arbitrations under the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43(“the Act”), the application was brought under subsection 6(c) which provides “[n]o court may intervene in matters governed by this Act, except for the following purposes as provided by this Act…(c) to prevent manifestly unfair or unequal treatment of a party to an arbitration agreement”. Previously, the Alberta Court of Appeal held in New Era Nutrition Inc. v Balance Bar Company, 2004 ABCA 280 (“New Era”), that courts could use subsection 6(c) to provide a remedy to cure unfairness arising from matters not covered by the specific language of the Act and that it could be used to allow “a party, faced with both a statement of claim and a notice to arbitrate, to apply to stay the arbitration on the basis that the matters in the two proceedings overlap and cannot be reasonably separated” in order to avoid unfairness (para. 43). IBI argued, among other things, that it needed the full participation and evidence of non-parties to the arbitration clause to defend itself and so if it were forced to arbitrate it would be unable to meet the case against it, which was manifestly unfair and so the arbitration should be stayed. Justice Dunlop, delivering his decision from the bench, refused the application to stay the arbitration as he determined that he had no jurisdiction to do so under the Act. He concluded that New Era “was no longer good law” in Alberta as the case had been considered and expressly overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2019] 2 SCR 144 (“Telus v Wellman”).

October 12, 2022October 13, 2022

B.C. – Leave to appeal granted on question of law of public importance – #670

In The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture v. Malcolm Drilling Company Inc., 2022 BCCA 319, the Applicants (The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture and related entities) sought leave to appeal an arbitral award where the underlying dispute turned on the proper interpretation of section 8(d) of the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012 c. 13. That provision states that a claim is “discovered” “on the first day on which the person “knew or reasonably ought to have known…that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damages, a court proceeding would have been an appropriate means to see to remedy the injury or loss”. Based on his interpretation of section 8(d), the Arbitrator had found that the claim was not time-barred. On application for leave to appeal, even though the Arbitrator’s reasons were “careful and thorough” Justice Voith decided to exercise his discretion to grant leave. He found the question of the proper interpretation of section 8(d) met the requirements of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2 for leave as it was a question of law that ‘cannot be dismissed through a preliminary examination’ and was of public or general importance as it had received little previous judicial attention.

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

British Columbia – legal errors must reflect award’s actual reasons when read as a whole – #649

In The Fairways at Bear Mountain Resort Owners’ Association v Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2022 BCSC 1235, Justice Donegan considered the threshold question for granting leave to appeal a final award, which is whether the alleged errors were questions of law. In doing so she emphasized the importance of reading the award as a whole and considering what it was that the Arbitrator had actually decided. When that was done in this case, she concluded that neither of the two suggested grounds for appeal (both concerning the application of a limitation period) were questions of law alone but were, instead, questions of mixed fact and law that were based on the Arbitrator’s construction of the contract.

June 20, 2022June 17, 2022

British Columbia – Application to stay amendments falters on attornment – #628

The case Hawrish v. Hawthorn, 2022 BCSC 849 concerned an application by the Defendants to stay amendments to pleadings on the basis that the parties had previously agreed to arbitrate those matters. The issue was whether the stay should be granted when the Defendants had already attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction over the original claim. The Chambers Judge, Justice Wilson, refused the stay application. He reasoned that the only issue was whether the stay application was brought in a timely manner. This, in turn, depended on whether the amendments raised new and discrete claims or whether they simply related to the original claims. Justice Wilson concluded that, even with the amendments, the dispute in “pith and substance” remained the same (para. 68). The amendments were “simply additional material facts” (para. 67). As a result, he found the Defendants had attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction regarding the matters raised in the amendments and the application for the stay was dismissed.

April 25, 2022April 25, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrators can decide non-legal business disputes, but not in this case – #608

The case 1107051 Ontario Ltd. v. GG Kingspa Enterprises Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 1847 concerned the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to decide a business dispute that was not legal in nature. The Applicant, 1107051 Ontario Ltd. (“110”), applied to “set aside” a decision of an arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over a dispute about whether a major real estate development project at King Street West and Spadina Avenue in Toronto (the “Project”) should include a hotel component when the parties were deadlocked on the issue. Section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act allows a party to apply to the Court to “decide” a jurisdictional issue if, as here, an arbitrator decides it as a preliminary question, as opposed to with the merits. Justice McEwen granted the “set aside”. He agreed with the arbitrator that the dispute was of a business nature and not legal and, further, that parties could arbitrate such non-justiciable disputes if they clearly and specifically intended to do so. In this case, although the arbitration clause was described as broad, the dispute was beyond its scope because the dispute was required by the clause to arise “under this Agreement”. That meant the dispute had to be about more than just anything to do with the Project. It had to concern the rights and obligations of the parties under the Agreement. Although a hotel was contemplated as part of the Project, it was not a required component. Further, express authorization to determine a business issue would have been necessary.