In Pezo v Pezo, 2021 ONSC 5406, the applicant Elma Pezo brought two claims: a family law claim against her spouse Kabir Pezo; and an oppression remedy claim against Kabir and his friend Hadis Kozo regarding a business they had all operated together. Kazo sought a stay of all claims against him on the basis that the parties had entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement with respect to the business that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. However, Elma argued that it was invalid because the two claims intersected and had to be heard together, but the arbitration clause did not meet the requirements for a family law arbitration set out in Ontario Regulation 134/07 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Justice Kraft disagreed. She found that the arbitration clause covered only the oppression remedy claims and that she had the discretion to grant a partial stay under s. 7(5) of the Arbitration Act because its two pre-conditions had been met: (a) the agreement dealt with only some of the matters in respect of which the proceeding was commenced; (b) it was reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in the agreement from other matters. She stayed the family law claims an ordered an arbitration with respect to the oppression claims to proceed before the action so that the findings of the arbitrator on issues that could affect the family law claim would be before the court.
Continue reading “Ontario – Partial stay; oppression claim arbitration to precede related family law action – #528”B.C. – Under new B.C. Act, third party may apply to arbitrator OR court to set aside subpoena issued by arbitrator – #524
In Terrace Community Forest LLP v Skeena Sawmills Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1522, Justice Milman dismissed an application brought by the petitioner, Terrace Community Forest LLP (TCF), for an order under s. 29(4) of the new British Columbia Arbitration Act, S.B.C 2020, c. 2, to set aside a subpoena requested by the respondent, Skeena, and issued by the arbitrator. The subpoena required TCF to produce documents in an ongoing arbitration under the Act. TCF was not a party to the arbitration, but was a third party and was alleged to have documents that were relevant to the arbitration. Justice Milman’s decision turned on the meaning of the word “or” in s. 29(4), which provides that a subpoena issued to a third party may be set aside on application by the person named in the subpoena to the arbitral tribunal “or” the Supreme Court. Justice Milman held that the word “or” in this context was to be read exclusively, rather than inclusively, because: (a) by its plain meaning, s. 29(4) contemplates an application by the third party in the first instance to either the arbitrator or the court, but not both, and the Legislature could not have intended that a third party could make sequential applications to set aside the same subpoena if dissatisfied with the first answer it received (b) there is no provision in the Act for the third party to bring an appeal or seek a review of an arbitrator’s decision under s. 29(4) and (c) s. 4 of the Act precludes any review of an arbitrator’s order by the court except as provided in the Act.
Continue reading “B.C. – Under new B.C. Act, third party may apply to arbitrator OR court to set aside subpoena issued by arbitrator – #524”B.C. – Scope/excess of authority when arbitrator considers variation of award made based upon incorrect facts – #523
In Marchetti v Lane, 2021 BCSC 1259, Justice Tucker dismissed an application brought by the respondent (Lane) to “change or set aside” an arbitral award under s. 19.18 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. The case has application to commercial arbitration awards and, indeed Justice Tucker looked to the set aside provisions of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233 (“ICAA”) to determine whether the award should be set aside on jurisdictional grounds. Lane argued, among other things, that the arbitrator had acted outside the scope of the submission to arbitration and outside her authority in varying an earlier “final” award. He argued that the arbitrator had previously declined to clarify or correct the initial award, so it was final and binding upon the parties and subject only to the statutory right of appeal. The parties had agreed to have all their issues in dispute resolved by arbitration and the award which was the subject of this application related merely to one issue. After considering s. 34 of the ICAA, Justice Tucker found that the first award had been based upon facts that turned out not to have been correct and was therefore incapable of being implemented. In varying that award, the arbitrator did not “purport to correct or clarify the award, but determined the application to vary brought before her while her jurisdiction over the matter remained extant under the terms of the submission to arbitration and the applicable statute”.
Continue reading “B.C. – Scope/excess of authority when arbitrator considers variation of award made based upon incorrect facts – #523”Ontario – Party’s conduct in suing in foreign jurisdiction constituted “strong cause” why arbitration clause should not be enforced under ONCA Novatrax principles – #519
In CSI Toronto Car Systems Installations Ltd. v Pittasoft Co., Ltd., 2021 ONSC 5117, Justice Mohan D. Sharma dismissed a motion by Pittasoft for a stay of CSI’s Ontario action in favour of arbitration on the grounds that: (1) under Article 8(1) of the Model Law, the arbitration agreement was “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” because Pittasoft was estopped by its own conduct from relying upon it and also that Pittasoft had brought its stay motion too late; and (2) these findings constituted “strong cause” why the arbitration clause should not be enforced in accordance with the principles articulated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Novatrax International Inc. v Hagele Landtechnik GmbH, 2016 ONCA 771 , that apply “when a litigant seeks to displace a forum selection clause agreed upon in a commercial contract”.
Continue reading “Ontario – Party’s conduct in suing in foreign jurisdiction constituted “strong cause” why arbitration clause should not be enforced under ONCA Novatrax principles – #519”B.C. – Portion of arbitral award set aside; re-hearing to be conducted by different arbitrator – #518
In Spirit Bay Developments Limited Partnership v Scala Developments Consultants Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1415, Justice Davies set aside a portion of an arbitral award and ordered a re-hearing on the basis that the arbitrator had erred in his application of the law of unjust enrichment to a construction contract. However, he found that it was necessary to have a different arbitrator conduct the re-hearing because the arbitrator had made findings of credibility adverse to Petitioner (Spirit Bay) representatives and also made several determinations of credibility that were critical of Spirit Bay’s evidence as well as its motivation in advancing some arguments. The arbitrator had “harshly criticized” Spirit Bay’s conduct not only in relation to the disputes in issue, but also within the arbitration, referring to “accounting tactics or tricks” and “tricks by Spirit Bay [which] continued into the hearing”, and characterizing Spirit Bay’s position in respect of one issue as a “ruse or a fiction”.
Continue reading “B.C. – Portion of arbitral award set aside; re-hearing to be conducted by different arbitrator – #518”Ontario – Party can sue and not required to arbitrate where opposing party obviously will not participate – #514
In 1100 Walkers Line Inc. v Elliott Sports Medicine Clinic Inc., 2021 ONSC 5067, Justice E.M. Morgan considered a commercial lease containing a renewal provision, which stated that if the parties could not agree on the applicable market rent to be paid during the renewal term, that issue “shall be determined by arbitration”. When the Tenant terminated the lease, but did not give the required 6 months’ written notice and thereafter vacated the premises, the Landlord sued, asserting that the automatic renewal provision was triggered and rent during the renewal term was owing. The Tenant claimed that the renewal provision was ambiguous and unenforceable, in part, because the applicable market rent during the renewal term had never been agreed upon by the parties, nor determined by arbitration since neither party had commenced an arbitration. Justice Morgan found that the renewal provision was unambiguous and enforceable and that the mandatory arbitration clause did not require the Landlord to initiate an arbitration in which the Tenant would obviously not participate. Further, because only the Landlord adduced any evidence of the applicable market rent, the arbitrator would have fixed the rent at that rate. Therefore, Justice Morgan granted judgment in favour of the Landlord.
Continue reading “Ontario – Party can sue and not required to arbitrate where opposing party obviously will not participate – #514”Ontario – Court application under Model Law Art. 16(3) to “decide the matter” of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is a hearing de novo and not a “review” of the tribunal’s decision – #513
In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604, the Divisional Court heard an appeal by Russia of an interlocutory decision of Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Russia Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2019 ONSC 7558. Justice Penny had declined to allow Russia to adduce fresh evidence on an application brought under Model Law Art. 16(3) to set aside an interim arbitral award finding that Russia had consented to arbitrate Luxtona’s claims and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction. The proposed fresh evidence related to the jurisdictional issue and had not been before the tribunal. The appeal turned on whether the application before Justice Penny was a “review” of the tribunal award on jurisdiction or a hearing de novo. The Divisional Court, in a decision written by Justice D.L. Corbett, held that Russia was entitled to adduce fresh evidence as of right because the application was a hearing de novo. The court relied upon two key decisions raised by the parties. Mexico v Cargill, 2011 ONCA 622 held that a set aside application brought in the Superior Court of Justice under Art. 34 of the Model Law is a “review” and not a hearing de novo, but in that case there was no challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. Therefore, the Divisional Court was not bound by it. The English Supreme Court decision of Dallah v Pakistan, [2011] AC 763, held that the court’s role where one party took the position that it had not consented to the arbitration was “to reassess the issue [of jurisdiction] itself” and not to “review” the tribunal’s decision. The Divisional Court found that this approach is supported by the language in the Model Law and the weight of international authority and Art. 2A of the Model Law, which promotes the uniformity of the application of the Model Law internationally.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court application under Model Law Art. 16(3) to “decide the matter” of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is a hearing de novo and not a “review” of the tribunal’s decision – #513”B.C. – party not abandoning position made in written argument, despite counsel’s failure to object to arbitrator’s contrary understanding – #512
In Eisler v. Connor Clark & Lunn Financial Group Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1280, Justice N. Smith granted, in part, the petitioners’ application for leave to appeal an arbitral award arising out of a dispute with their former employer, CCL. During their employment, the petitioners were paid income from certain funds owned by CCL that had investments in a variety of companies. After the petitioners’ employment was terminated, CCL re-organized the funds and acquired new investments in the fund. It stopped paying income from the fund to the petitioners, as a result of which they commenced an arbitration. The arbitrator found for CCL and the petitioners sought leave to appeal the award. One of the issues before Justice Smith was whether the duty of good faith first recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 was before the arbitrator. The argument that CCL had breached the contractual duty of good faith, through an improper use of its discretion to re-organize the fund and terminate the petitioners’ income entitlement, was contained in the petitioners’ written argument. But when the arbitrator asserted during the arbitration that it was his understanding that the petitioners were not advancing this position, petitioners’ counsel failed to correct him. Nonetheless, Justice Smith found that the issue was properly before the arbitrator.
Continue reading “B.C. – party not abandoning position made in written argument, despite counsel’s failure to object to arbitrator’s contrary understanding – #512”Québec – No bias where arbitrator rejected most objections by a party, had little interest in some evidence, questioned witnesses, and showed irritation at party – #511
In Consortium MR Canada ltée v Morissette, 2021 QCCS 2847, Justice Philippe Bélanger heard an appeal of an arbitral award pursuant to which MR was required to carry out remedial work on buildings built by it, as general contractor, which had longstanding water problems and to pay extra-judicial fees because of its abusive behaviour in failing to remedy the problems. MR appealed the award on a number of grounds, including that that the “attitude and remarks” made by the arbitrator during the hearing were a breach of his duty of impartiality. It filed affidavits from witnesses and MR representatives, who said that the arbitrator “seemed disinterested” and “seemed to favour the [building owners]”. Justice Bélanger found that while the arbitrator clearly demonstrated irritation with respect to MR’s delays in completing its remedial work, a reasonable person would not think that this rose to the level of bias.
Continue reading “Québec – No bias where arbitrator rejected most objections by a party, had little interest in some evidence, questioned witnesses, and showed irritation at party – #511”Ontario –Arbitrator has jurisdiction to appoint inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act if terms of parties’ arbitration agreement allows, but court assistance needed if third parties affected – #510
In Randhawa v. Randhawa, 2021 ONSC 3643, Justice Koehnen considered whether the arbitrator appointed by the parties had jurisdiction when he issued an award appointing an inspector to conduct an investigation. The applicant (Paul) and the respondent (Rana) were brothers, who were involved in a dispute about the separation of their interests in various businesses which they once ran together. Paul commenced an oppression remedy application in March 2018, which was resolved by Minutes of Settlement dated October 1, 2018. The Minutes of Settlement called for the dissolution or sale of the businesses and provided that any disputes arising from the implementation of the Minutes of Settlement were to be resolved by way of arbitration. Disputes arose and the arbitrator issued an award under the Ontario Business Corporations Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16, appointing an inspector to conduct an investigation. During the arbitration, Paul brought a court application for the appointment of a receiver over a portion of the brothers’ businesses. Although Rana agreed to the receiver’s appointment, he contested the receiver’s right to conduct an investigation that involved third parties. He also contested the arbitrator’s jurisdiction when he awarded the appointment of an investigator under the OBCA at all and because the investigation included the affairs of a third party. Justice Koehnen granted Paul’s application. He found that there was no previous case and nothing in the parties’ arbitration clause that prohibited an arbitrator from awarding a statutory remedy, including the appointment of an inspector. The arbitrator acknowledged that his jurisdiction was limited to the parties to the arbitration agreement and that any investigation of a third party would require the assistance of the court, which Justice Koehnen ordered. In addition, the parties had agreed to the appointment of a receiver and there was ample evidence of the need to investigate the affairs of the third party as they affected the issues in the dispute between the brothers.
Continue reading “Ontario –Arbitrator has jurisdiction to appoint inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act if terms of parties’ arbitration agreement allows, but court assistance needed if third parties affected – #510”