Arbitration Case Notes Archives - Page 16 of 92

September 11, 2023September 8, 2023

Québec – Arbitration counsel not disqualified, despite opposing party paying underlying transaction fees – #771

In Glen Eagle Resources Inc. c. GEM Global Yield, 2023 QCCS 3144, the Court determined that a law firm was not disqualified from acting as counsel in annulment and enforcement proceedings when it acted for one party, but a portion of the legal fees were paid by the opposing party in the transaction giving rise to arbitration. But it raises a potential red flag for counsel.

August 31, 2023August 28, 2023

Federal – Independence/impartiality not essential criteria for arbitrator appointment? – #770

In Export Development Canada v. Suncor Energy Inc., 2023 FC 1050, the Federal Court heard an application for an order appointing an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration clause in a political risk insurance policy (the “Policy”). The Court made several findings on the five issues before it. Two of those findings are highlighted here, with the others addressed below. First, subsidiaries of one of the parties claimed they were improperly included in the arbitration – as they were not parties to the arbitration agreement – and therefore claimed the Court had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in a manner that would bind them. The Court rejected this and refused to preliminarily determine that jurisdictional issue, which was a matter for the arbitrator pursuant to the competence-competence principle. Second, the Court determined what criteria should apply to the selection of the sole arbitrator. The Court held that the criteria of independence and impartiality, among others, are not “threshold criteria” and would not necessarily disqualify a proposed arbitrator if not met. Rather, they are part of what the Court considers in exercising its discretion.

August 30, 2023September 5, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator wrong to extend arbitration agreement to include third-party employees – #769

The Superior Court of Québec in Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2023 QCCS 2678 held that employees not party to an arbitration agreement should not be added as parties to an ongoing arbitration. There is no support for the proposition that all third parties that are in some way related to the signatory parties of an arbitration agreement should be bound by it. This decision on the merits follows the stay granted by the Superior Court in October 2021 (Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2021 QCCS 4388), covered in Case Note Québec – Stay of arbitrator’s decision to add third parties, force them to meet timetable, and refusal to hear them without payment – #553.

August 29, 2023August 28, 2023

Ontario – Stay granted: tort claims were in “pith and substance” contractual – #768

In Spasiw et al v. Quality Green Inc. et al, 2023 ONSC 4422, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in the context of a shareholders dispute. The plaintiffs’ claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression were “closely connected with and related to” the parties’ share purchase agreement and shareholders agreement and in “pith and substance” contractual.. Accordingly, the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clauses contained in the parties’ two agreements.

August 28, 2023August 28, 2023

Ontario –Arbitration Costs Payable Despite Application to Set Aside the Award – #767

In The Canada Soccer Association Incorporated v. Association de Soccer de Brossard, 2023 ONSC 4317, the Court held that the arbitrator’s cost decision was part of the arbitral final award, that a judgment enforcing the award extends to the decision on costs and that the winning party is entitled to the payment of its costs despite the losing party’s pending application to set aside the award, unless it obtains an interim order to the contrary. Rule 63.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, which applies to appeals, does not apply – by analogy – to stay the costs order made as part of an award.

August 18, 2023August 18, 2023

International – Deliberation-related documents need not be produced, despite strong dissent – #766

In CZT v CZU, 2023 SGHCI 11, the Singapore International Commercial Court refused to order the arbitral tribunal to disclose deliberation-related documents in the context of a set-aside application under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) despite the dissenting arbitrator’s statement that he had “lost any and all trust in the impartiality of [his] fellow arbitrators.” The applicant relied upon Article 34(2), alleging that the majority had breached the rules of natural justice, had exceeded the terms or scope of the submission to arbitration, that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and that the award conflicted with Singapore public policy. For the reasons set out below, this case has relevance to Canadian international arbitration practice.

August 17, 2023August 11, 2023

Québec – No evidence permitted in support of annulment application – #765

In Glen Eagle Resources Inc. v. Gem Yield Bahamas Ltd, 2023 QCCA 686, the Court of Appeal dismissed Appellant’s application for leave to appeal the Superior Court’s decision dismissing Appellant’s request to adduce evidence in support of its application for annulment of an arbitral award. The lower court dismissed Appellant’s request to have a witness testify in support of its argument that the contract containing the arbitration clause was void. Appellant argued that the nullity of the contract would lead to the conclusion that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction. Respondent, which applied for homologation of the award, argued that the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear evidence on the merits of the arbitration on an application to annul the award and that, in any event, the arbitration clause was a separate contract, not affected by the nullity of the contract in which it was included. Following the Superior Court’s decision, the hearing before it was suspended until the Court of Appeal’s decision on the matter.

August 16, 2023August 11, 2023

New Brunswick – Arbitration award not trigger for discoverability of related claim– #764

In Architecture 2000 Inc. v. Moncton, 2023 NBCA 50, a unanimous Court of Appeal summarily dismissed civil claims of breach of contract and negligence in the design and management of a building addition. While the appeal turned on New Brunswick’s limitations legislation, claims made in an earlier arbitration from the same construction project were crucial to this outcome, as explained below. The decision exemplifies problems that can arise in a dispute in which there are multiple contracts at issue, when some players are parties to some contracts but not others, and when an arbitration agreement covers only some of the disputes between the various contracting players.

August 15, 2023August 14, 2023

B.C. – No unfairness for procedural irregularity, no jurisdiction to review facts – #763

In Anins v. Anins, 2022 BCCA 441 (leave to appeal refused 2023 CanLII 64855 (SCC)), the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld a lower court decision dismissing a petition to set aside a family arbitral award based on errors of law and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal agreed with the B.C. Supreme Court that the Arbitrator did not cause any unfairness in failing to make a procedural direction in writing, nor were his reasons insufficient for omitting reference to certain statutory provisions. The Court of Appeal also agreed that the appellant’s grounds for appeal on the merits raised pure questions of fact. These were not appealable under B.C.’s then-applicable domestic arbitration statute.

August 14, 2023August 18, 2023

Alberta – Misapplication of separability principle in contract dispute – #762

Gutama Estate v Vital Property Services Inc., 2023 ABKB 436, is NOT an arbitration case and the contract at issue contained no arbitration clause. But bear with me! The case involved the alleged repudiation/termination of a shareholders agreement and the consequences to the rights and obligations of the parties as a result. The question: if the contract was repudiated/terminated, were all the parties’ rights unwound? The Court quoted from Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. (uniset.ca), the leading U.K. decision that established the common law principle of separability of the arbitration clause. The Court described Heyman v Darwins as a case that addresses the operation of an arbitration clause where the contract has come to an end: in circumstances in which the contract-terminating event did not go to the very existence of the contract, “it did not matter how the contract came to be terminated: the contract (including its arbitration clause) had existed, and the arbitration clause continued to operate….” The Court then extrapolated that concept and applied it more broadly: “[i]n other words, pre-existing and engaged contractual rights continued to operate despite the later termination (by whatever means) of the contract”. Applying that reasoning to this case where the shareholders agreement was alleged to have been repudiated or terminated by its own terms, the Court said that any such termination did not, “eclipse the agreement completely ie render it meaningless for all purposes and at all times… [i]nstead, crystalized rights and obligations would continue.” In other words, “the parties would be discharged from future obligations, but remain bound by rights and obligations that have accrued through partial performance”. Thus the Court imported part of a uniquely arbitration law principle with a specific public policy purpose, separability, into general contract law.