Rebecca Shoom, Author at Arbitration Matters

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Ontario – Technical requirements for stay are precondition to competence-competence principle – #909

In Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 2058, the court granted the applicant leave to bring derivative actions, rather than refusing leave based on the respondents’ argument that leave should be denied because of an arbitration agreement contained in a shareholders agreement. In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized four technical requirements for a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, one of which is that the party applying for a stay of the court proceedings has not taken a step in the proceeding. Rather than bringing a motion to stay the applicant’s leave request under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, the respondents participated in the litigation and only raised arguments about an arbitration agreement in their factum responding to the applicants’ leave application. The court applied Peace River, which would have applied had the respondents brought a stay motion, and found that the respondents did not satisfy the technical requirements for a stay, having taken a step in the court proceeding. Because those requirements are a precondition to a stay, the court did not engage with the respondents’ arguments related to the competence-competence principle, and refused to dismiss the application for leave to bring derivative actions on the basis that the court proceeding should proceed by way of arbitration.

January 24, 2025January 24, 2025

Ontario – Appeal prohibition applies beyond limits of arbitral appointment applications – #889

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2299 v Distillery SE Development Corp., 2024 ONCA 712, the Court held that there could be no appeal from an order appointing an arbitrator, even though the order did not explicitly indicate that it was made pursuant to s. 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Section 10(1) provides that the court may appoint an arbitrator on a party’s application if, for example, the arbitration agreement provides no appointment procedure. Pursuant to s. 10(2), there is no appeal from the court’s appointment. Here, the application for an order appointing an arbitrator did not refer to s. 10 of the Arbitration Act but did refer to Rule 14.05 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (the general rule pertaining to applications and what types of relief may be sought by application, including a determination of rights under a contract). This reference to Rule 14.05 did not engage s. 6 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, which sets out the matters over which the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction and provides for an appeal as of right in respect of most final orders of Superior Court judges. The appeal of the appointment order was quashed based on the appeal prohibition in s. 10(2) of the Arbitration Act.

November 4, 2024November 8, 2024

Ontario – Common counsel insufficient for multiple arbitral appointments to raise bias – #872

In Dhaliwal v Richter International Ltd., 2024 ONSC 5103, the Court dismissed an application to remove an arbitrator for reasonable apprehension of bias. This was a multiple appointments case. The application arose from the non-disclosure of a concurrent mandate, in which counsel for the Respondents also was counsel in another arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Applicants’ challenge for bias was not brought in a timely manner, as required by s. 13(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. In any event, overlapping counsel alone was not a sufficient ground for claiming bias, and no contextual circumstances necessitated disclosure of the concurrent mandate. Also, the arbitrator’s rejection of the Applicants’ evidence of what had been disclosed about the concurrent mandate did not give rise to actual bias.