In Municipalité de Caplan v. Arpo Groupe-Conseil Inc., 2020 QCCS 885, Madam Justice Michèle Lacroix refused to nominate an arbitrator due to the limited scope the parties gave to the definition of dispute in the agreement to arbitrate. She held that when an agreement to arbitrate uses imprecise terms, access to the courts must be favoured over enforcement of such clauses.
Continue reading “Québec – narrow definition of ‘dispute’ in agreement to arbitrate justifies refusal to nominate arbitrator – #303”Ontario – Vavilov does not overrule Teal Cedar or Sattva Capital – #302
In Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery And Gaming Corporation, 2020 ONSC 1516, Mr. Justice Glenn A. Hainey held that Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 does not refer to either Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 633 or Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2017] 1 SCR 688 and that it is not reasonable to conclude that the Supreme Court meant to overrule its own decisions without making any reference to them or to the area of law to which they relate.
Continue reading “Ontario – Vavilov does not overrule Teal Cedar or Sattva Capital – #302”B.C. – stay issued despite procedural complexity, further legal proceedings prohibited without leave – #301
In Houm Services Inc. v. Lettuce Eatery Development Inc., 2020 BCSC 430, Madam Justice Heather MacNaughton stayed claims filed by plaintiff against defendant and its employees, pending resolution of claims which did fall within the agreement to arbitrate. She held that the agreement was valid and compliant with B.C.’s Franchises Act, SBC 2015, c 35 and any further relief, beyond the scope of the agreement to arbitrate, could be pursued in court after arbitration despite any “procedural complexity” or delays. She also issued an order under the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c 443 prohibiting plaintiff and its representative from instituting further legal proceedings against defendant and/or its employees without leave of the court.
Continue reading “B.C. – stay issued despite procedural complexity, further legal proceedings prohibited without leave – #301”Saskatchewan – legislation imposes mediation and stay of any proceedings upon application of farmer – #300
In HCI Ventures Ltd. v. S.O.L. Acres, 2020 SKCA 24, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal dismissed two (2) appeals stemming from application of the province’s Farm Debt Mediation Act, SC 1997, c 21 which imposes mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors pending a stay of any proceedings. “[D]esigned as a tool for farmers to work with creditors in order to keep the farming operation afloat during difficult financial times”, the mediation-and-stay applies to “any proceedings or any action, execution or other proceedings, judicial or extra-judicial, for the recovery of a debt, the realization of any security or the taking of any property of the farmer”.
Continue reading “Saskatchewan – legislation imposes mediation and stay of any proceedings upon application of farmer – #300”Ontario – summary judgment enforces settlement issuing from arbitration – #299
In Furniture.com Inc. v. Leon’s Furniture Ltd., 2019 ONSC 7451, Madam Justice Sandra Nishikawa granted summary judgment for breach of a settlement entered into after arbitration began. Nishikawa J.’s decision was the latest in a sequence of different dispute resolution options undertaken by the parties – arbitration, court application for leave to appeal an award, private settlement and summary judgment to enforce settlement. Nishikawa’s reasons also demonstrate that resolution went ahead despite defendant’s evidentiary objections and other ongoing dispute resolution in the U.S.
Continue reading “Ontario – summary judgment enforces settlement issuing from arbitration – #299”Ontario – Vavilov standard applies to statutory insurance arbitration but not private commercial arbitration – #298
In Allstate Insurance Company v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2020 ONSC 830, Madam Justice Breese Davies held that Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 altered judicial intervention on appeals from insurance arbitration mandated by legislation. Davies J. held that legislation which includes a statutory appeal mechanism signals legislative intent that courts are to perform an appellate function in respect of the administrative decision and apply appellate standards of review. Davies J. distinguished between appeals of statutory arbitrations and private commercial arbitrations, the latter being seen as autonomous, self-contained process in which courts should “generally” not intervene.
Continue reading “Ontario – Vavilov standard applies to statutory insurance arbitration but not private commercial arbitration – #298”Québec – parties prompted to consider consent award, not litigate whether settlement occurred – #297
In Syndicat de la copropriété Marché St-Jacques v. 9257-3302 Québec inc., 2020 QCCS 975, Mr. Justice Sylvain Lussier refused to homologate a transaction (settlement agreement) and reminded the parties that their contract contained an agreement to arbitrate further to which they could obtain a consent award recording their settlement. Lussier J. reviewed the purported settlement and determined that it lacked most of the essentials to qualify as a transaction such as a mention of the exact disputes, the parties’ respective claims made leading up to the settlement, any judicial/arbitral proceeding settled, a release or payment.
Continue reading “Québec – parties prompted to consider consent award, not litigate whether settlement occurred – #297”Québec – court’s intervention on challenge to award on jurisdiction is not judicial review – #296
In Khalilian v. Murphy, 2020 QCCS 831, Madam Justice Chantal Chatelain resisted the parties’ joint submission that her intervention on a challenge to an arbitrator’s award on jurisdiction was a judicial review subject to administrative law standards of review. Instead, referring to Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01, leading doctrine and case law in Québec, she emphasized that an arbitrator in a contractual arbitration does not qualify as a tribunal subject to a court’s control and supervision. A court can intervene on errors of law committed by the arbitrator when deciding jurisdiction because an arbitrator cannot attribute jurisdiction by incorrectly evaluating the facts and the law.
Continue reading “Québec – court’s intervention on challenge to award on jurisdiction is not judicial review – #296”Ontario – litigation stayed to permit arbitrator to determine jurisdiction and issues subject to arbitration – #295
In a pair of decisions, Deco Homes (Richmond Hill) Inc. v. Mao, 2019 ONSC 6223 and Deco Homes (Richmond Hill) Inc. v. Li, 2019 ONSC 7501, Mr. Justice Lorne Sossin acknowledged overlap of buyers’ claims subject to statutory arbitration and vendor’s claims for breach of contract not covered by arbitration. Respectful of competence-competence, Sossin J. stayed the actions to allow an arbitrator to make a first determination, reasoning that vendor’s claims could not be resolved without recourse to questions that lay within the agreement’s exclusive scope. To identify the dispute, he included vendor’s claims and those raised by each buyer.
Continue reading “Ontario – litigation stayed to permit arbitrator to determine jurisdiction and issues subject to arbitration – #295”Saskatchewan – court approves arbitral parties’ Pierringer agreement in litigation against third party – #294
Upon application, Madam Justice Brenda R. Hildebrandt in Rosetown (Town) v. Bridge Road Construction Ltd., 2020 SKQB 3 approved an agreement between two (2) arbitral/litigation parties T and BR to release BR from litigation involving a third party S which did not participate in that agreement. The agreement, known as a Pierringer agreement, left S open to its proportionate share of responsibility in the litigation pursued by T. Having examined the Pierringer agreement in light of its impact on S, Hildebrandt J. approved its application and amendments to the pleadings in court to implement it.
Continue reading “Saskatchewan – court approves arbitral parties’ Pierringer agreement in litigation against third party – #294”