Arbitration Case Notes Archives - Arbitration Matters

November 22, 2023November 22, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine lien entitlement; only court has jurisdiction to enforce – #794

Santé Montréal Collectif CJV c. Veolia Health Services Montreal 2023 QCCS 3817 concerned a dispute relating to the construction of a hospital complex. The Respondent, Veolia Health Services Montreal sec (“Veolia”), alleged it was due money for repair work as part of its contractual obligation to perform maintenance after construction of the hospital complex was complete. It filed a notice of arbitration and at the same time a hypothec, or lien, against the subject property (the “Mortgage Notice”) with the court. The Applicant, Sante Montreal CJV Collective sec (“CJV”) built the hospital complex. It, had separate obligations to ensure the property was clear of encumbrances and applied to strike the Mortgage Notice (the “Request to Strike”). Even though only the Court had authority to discharge the Mortgage Notice, it nonetheless suspended CJV’s application, pending the determination of the arbitration, and ruled that the Veolia’s entitlement to relief pursuant to the Mortgage Notice was an issue for an arbitrator to decide.

November 22, 2023November 22, 2023

Alberta – “Admissions” made by party in arbitration did not bind it in action – #795

In Paramount Resources Ltd. v Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ABKB 627, Paramount, an oil and gas company, sued its insurers as a result of their denial of coverage with respect to an incident involving environmental contamination following a leak in a pipeline carrying natural gas condensate. The insurers asserted that the leak was “detected” outside the period required for coverage under the policy. This action proceeded in parallel with an arbitration between Paramount and its co-owner and operator of the pipeline, over whether Paramount was required to share in the remediation costs. Paramount settled the arbitration, paying less than the amount claimed by the operator. In the action, Paramount sought damages from the insurers in an amount equal to the settlement payment. The insurers defended, in part, on the basis that Paramount had made admissions in the arbitration which were fatal to its action against the insurers. The court rejected those arguments. First, Paramount was entitled to make alternative arguments in the arbitration. Second, there was a risk of inconsistent results in the two proceedings, including on whether there was coverage under the policies, which was important context. Third, Paramount was fully transparent in its strategy and the insurers did not rely upon Paramount’s “admissions”. Finally, Paramount’s “admissions of fact” as to when the leak was “detected” in the arbitration were issues of mixed fact and law in the action because they turned on the interpretation of the words “detected” and “discover” under the policy. The court found that the settlement was reasonable and awarded Paramount damages equal to the settlement amount for the insurers’ breach of contract.

November 21, 2023November 23, 2023

Newfoundland and Labrador – Set-aside application denied where award meets Vavilov reasonableness test – #793

In Zenda Mount Pearl Square Enterprises Limited Partnership v MP TEI Realty Limited Partnership, 2023 NLSC 142, the Applicant/Respondent in the arbitration applied to set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute involving the contractual entitlement to refinancing proceeds that the Applicant/Respondent received as a result of a rogue transfer of funds. Section 14 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arbitration Act, RSNL 1990, c A-14 (the “Arbitration Act”) gives the Court the authority to set aside an arbitral award if it finds that there was Arbitrator misconduct or the award was improperly procured. The Court held that the burden is on the applicant to show that the award is improper as a matter of fact, law, or mixed fact and law, and that the award falls outside out any potential reasonable outcome. The Court’s analysis and reasons looked at whether the decision of the Arbitrator was reasonable, applying Layman v Layman Estate, 2016 NLCA 13 (“Layman”). Focusing, in part, on the Arbitrator’s application of the principles of contract interpretation set out in Creston Moly Corp. v Sattva Capital Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (“Sattva”), the Court concluded that the Arbitrator’s decision to divide the proceeds equally between the parties was reasonable based on the terms of the parties’ agreements. The Court dismissed the set-aside application on the basis that the decision of the Arbitrator, in respect of all of the grounds reviewed by the Court, was reasonable. This case has application to the review (including on set-asides) of arbitration decisions on the basis of reasonableness and the contractual interpretation of commercial agreements.

November 20, 2023November 17, 2023

Quebec – Streamlined procedures do not deny party’s ability to its present case – #792

In Gagnon c. Truchon, 2023 QCCA 1053, the Quebec Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal the Superior Court’s earlier decision to dismiss an application to annul an award and instead to enforce it. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Applicants had failed to establish “questions of principle” arising out of a “purement privé” fee dispute between the Applicants and their former lawyer. After failing to object to streamlined procedures selected by the Arbitration Council appointed by the Bureau du Québec, the Applicants could not later complain that they were denied the opportunity to present their case.

November 9, 2023November 3, 2023

Ontario – Arbitrator to rule on own jurisdiction and addition of party – #791

In Toronto Standard v Distillery SE, 2023 ONSC 5340, the Court upheld the parties’ agreement to appoint a specific arbitrator, and also determined that issues relating to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and mandate, and the addition of a party, should be decided by the arbitrator and not the Court.

November 8, 2023November 3, 2023

Manitoba – Awards set aside after arbitrator re-wrote parties’ bargain – #790

In Buffalo Point First Nation and Buffalo Point Development Corp Ltd v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association, Inc, 2023 MBKB 141, the Court confirmed its earlier decision on the motion for leave to appeal, in which it held that the correctness standard of appeal in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”) applies to review of private arbitration awards appealed under provincial arbitration legislation. The Court held that the arbitrator had erred because he exceeded the jurisdiction granted to him under the parties’ agreement. First, the arbitrator exceeded the jurisdiction to “implement” or “clarify” a Consent Award which the parties had entered into following an earlier dispute. Second, the arbitrator’s award constituted “a significant rewrite of the bargain (…) by introducing new concepts alien to the negotiated bargain”.

November 7, 2023November 3, 2023

Alberta – Non-signatory principal bound by its agent’s arbitration agreement – #789

In LAPP Corporation v. Alberta, 2023 ABKB 566, the Court overruled the arbitrator’s decision in which he found that he had no jurisdiction over the Government of Alberta. In a de novo hearing pursuant to s. 17(9) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 2000, c. A-43, the Court concluded that Alberta was bound by the arbitration agreement included in an Investment Management Agreement (IMA) between three Alberta public pension plans (Funds) and Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo). AIMCo is a fully state-owned investment management services provider created by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation Act. The Act specifically provides in Section 3(1) that AIMCo “is for all purposes an agent of the Crown in right of Alberta and may exercise its power and perform its duties and functions only as an agent of the Crown in right of Alberta.” Considering the broad and all-inclusive scope of the provision, the Court found that, while acting within its powers, AIMCo was always acting as Alberta’s agent and never on its own behalf. Alberta, as disclosed principal, was bound by an agreement made by its agent, even though it was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

November 6, 2023November 3, 2023

Ontario – Appeals combined where stay of proceedings impacts class certification – #788

In Davis v Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, 2023 ONCA 634 the Court combined two appeals initiated in two different courts arising from a single decision that concerned two interrelated motions. One was an appeal of a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration granted pursuant to s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (“Arbitration Act”) and the other was an appeal of a decision denying class certification. The Plaintiff appealed the decision denying class certification to the Divisional Court, as required by the then applicable version of the class proceedings legislation [Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c 6 (“CPA”)] and appealed the stay decision to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff then applied to the Court of Appeal to transfer the class certification appeal from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal and join it to the stay appeal. The Court granted the application. It concluded that to do so was in the interests of the administration of justice. The Court found that, as some of the proposed class members (although not the representative plaintiff) were alleged to be subject to arbitration agreements, “the appeal of the stay decision goes directly to who may be class members and is completely premised on certification being under consideration” (para. 14). The Court was of the view this finding weighed strongly in favour of the appeals being combined “so that they can be managed, sequenced, considered, and decided taking into account and specifying the effect a decision in one may have on the other” (para. 13).

October 27, 2023October 30, 2023

Ontario – Court defines arbitral record where arbitration not recorded – #787

In Reed v. Cooper-Gordon Ltd. et al, 2023 ONSC 5261, the Court granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal an employment and shareholder related arbitral award on a question of law under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991. The plaintiff’s claims were originally raised by way of action, then proceeded by arbitration. The plaintiff/claimant in the arbitration claimed, among other things, that the arbitrator had wrongly determined the notice period for pay in lieu of notice, overlooked certain claims for unpaid bonuses and RRSP contributions, and incorrectly valued his shares in the underlying arbitration relating to his exit from the defendant. The Court held that the arbitrator’s error in computing the notice period and his lack of reasons relating to certain claims justified granting leave to appeal. The Court denied leave on the remaining issues. Because the parties had not recorded the arbitration, the record was limited to pleadings filed in the Superior Court of Justice that defined the issues for arbitration, the parties’ arbitration agreement, the Arbitration Award and Costs Award, the shareholders’ agreement and the parties’ Partial Minutes of Settlement on a particular issue.

October 26, 2023October 20, 2023

Québec –Waiver of arbitration after court proceedings, despite letter proposing arbitration– #786

The Superior Court of Québec in 13647846 Canada inc. c. Phase III Wellington Griffintown inc., 2023 QCCS 3589 dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration on the grounds that: (i) it was made too late without justification, and (ii) the plaintiffs had waived their recourse to arbitration by submitting their dispute to the Superior Court first. Here, the plaintiffs brought legal proceedings with respect to a matter that was subject to an arbitration agreement. They then proposed arbitration by letter, which the defendants rejected. When the plaintiffs sought a stay of part of their own proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to Article 622 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), the Court found that they were out of time. The 45-day time period for the stay motion started when the court proceedings were commenced, and the stay application was not made within this period. It was irrelevant that their letter was sent within the 45-day period. The Court also found that plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate.