Arbitration Matters

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Stephanie’s Reflections (2025): The Battle of the Standards of Review – #926

The standard of review for an appeal of a commercial arbitration award has been a topic of debate since the release of the administrative law decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Since then, lower courts in Canada have grappled with two opposite interpretations: the first, that the standard of review analysis in Vavilov applies to commercial arbitrations, and the second, that the standard of review for commercial arbitration awards is reasonableness, as established in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva] and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 [Teal Cedar].

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Rebecca’s Reflections (2025): Vento and the Hard-Line Consequences of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – #925

Over the last couple of years, arbitration practitioners across the country have had their eyes on the Ontario courts, which have considered several cases on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias. For this reason, I’ve chosen to focus on Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82, as a year-end reflection for 2025. Vento is an important reminder of the centrality of arbitrator independence to the institution of arbitration, and how its absence (whether real or perceived) can crumble the foundation of the arbitration process.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

BC – BPCPA amendments prohibiting arbitration agreements in consumer contracts retrospective not retroactive – #924

In Vandenbosch v Rogers Communications Canada Inc, 2025 BCSC 1199, the Court granted both defendants’ applications to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration. The stay against the primary defendant was granted, even though the arbitration clause was contained in a consumer contract. The Court considered recent amendments to BC’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c. 2 (“BPCPA”) prohibiting arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, which came into force during a continuance of the hearing of the defendants’ stay applications. The Court found that the amendments had a retrospective effect on future disputes arising under contracts concluded prior to the amendments, but not a retroactive effect on disputes arising from facts occurring prior to the amendments. Accordingly, the BPCPA amendmentsdid not apply to the plaintiff’s action, which was based on claims that arose before the amendments were passed. Therefore, the Court granted the stay of the court proceedings. The Court also stayed claims raised against a second defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, on the basis that these claims were based on the same factual matrix as the claims formulated against the primary defendant, which was a party to the arbitration clause.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Set Aside not available for bespoke process – #923

In Tehama Group Inc. v. Pythian Services Inc, 2025 ONSC 4134, the Court denied an application to set aside an international award on the basis of alleged procedural flaws in an accounting arbitration to resolve a dispute about whether a purchase price adjustment payment was owing to the seller of a business. The Court reviewed the terms of the parties’ bespoke arbitration agreement and the arbitral award and concluded that the specialist arbitrator, an accounting firm, had followed the summary dispute resolution process to which the parties had agreed. The Court ruled there was no breach of natural justice. Instead, the parties got the process they bargained for: “determinations strictly from a financial accounting perspective” and not “legal guidance or opinion [or] legal interpretation.”

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Arbitrator Removed for Management of Potential Conflict After Disclosure – #922

MTCC No. 1251 v Windsor Arms Hotel Corp., 2025 ONSC 5009 offers a cautionary tale for arbitrators when confronting late-arising potential conflicts. The Court removed the Arbitrator for a reasonable apprehension of bias. It did so, not because of the potential conflict itself, which it found would have been insufficient on its own, but because of the way the Arbitrator managed the issue after disclosure. It was this handling, rather than the conflict per se, that rendered the apprehension of bias reasonable.

October 3, 2025December 4, 2025

Manitoba – First CA finding reasonableness standard applies to commercial award appeals – #921

Buffalo Point First Nation v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc, 2025 MBCA 72 was the first appellate court to decide that the standard of review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 for reviews of decisions of administrative tribunals does not apply to appeals of commercial arbitration awards. (As explained below in my commentary, this italicized language is critical to the analysis of this case.) Instead, the “reasonableness” standard of review, which was established in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 and affirmed in Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32, applies. In other words, Vavilov did not overturn Sattva. The fact that domestic arbitration legislation provides an appeal right does not mean that the same “appellate standards” apply in this context. The Court applied the reasonableness review analysis set out in Vavilov, except it found that a greater level of deference might be owed to an arbitrator’s expertise given the purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, giving effect to the parties’ desire for that method of dispute resolution. In other words, this standard of review reflects the reasonable expectations of the parties.

October 3, 2025October 3, 2025

Ontario – Party bound by rule change despite not agreeing to it – #920

In InFrontier AF LP v. Rahmani, 2025 ONSC 3968 (CanLII) (“InFrontier”), the Court heard an application to recognize and enforce an award and considered the effect of amendments to the arbitral rules chosen by the parties in their arbitration agreement. The parties had agreed to settle disputes by arbitration seated in Dubai using a specific set of arbitration rules (the “OldRules”) administered by a specific arbitral institution. Before the arbitration commenced, a change in Dubai law led to those rules being replaced by a new set of rules (the “New Rules”) to be administered by a different institution. As described below, there was a degree of connection between the Old Rules and the New Rules and between the two institutions. The arbitration proceeded under the New Rules. Mr. Rahmani, the Respondent in the arbitration, unsuccessfully challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to proceed under the New Rules. He was also unsuccessful in the arbitration. InFrontier applied for recognition and enforcement of the award in Ontario. Mr. Rahmani opposed the application, arguing: (1) the composition of the tribunal and the arbitration procedure were not in accordance with the arbitration agreement because the arbitration proceeded, without his agreement, under the New Rules, (2) recognizing and enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy in Ontario because it was obtained as a result of a retroactive amendment to the arbitration agreement without the parties’ consent, and (3) he was unable to present his case during the arbitration. The Court rejected all his arguments.

This case summary deals only with Issue 1.

October 3, 2025October 7, 2025

Federal – No Stay Where Case a Proper One for Summary Judgment – #919

In QSL Canada Inc. v. Canpotex Terminals Limited, 2025 FC 1012, the Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration and granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the motion judge analyzed contractual and legal issues that were plainly subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement. This is permitted by the statutory exceptions to stay motions found in the arbitration legislation across the country demonstrating that the policy behind courts respecting parties’ agreement to arbitrate is not absolute. One of the limited exceptions applies to cases where it is found that summary judgment is appropriate. Interestingly, the Defendant also brought the stay motion under the Federal Court general stay provision.

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Alberta – Exercise of Share Purchase Option Precludes Arbitration of Oppression Claims – #918

In ONE Properties Holdings Corp v Turtle Bay Investments Ltd, 2025 ABKB 313, the Court held that the exercise of a contractual option to buy out a minority shareholder and the accompanying independent share valuation mechanism extinguished parallel oppression claims brought by the minority shareholder pursuant to the arbitration agreements in unanimous shareholder agreements (“USAs”). At the time, the separate option agreement had already been exercised and the minority shareholders’ shares, in respect to which the oppression was being invoked, were already subject to the independent valuation mechanism. The Court declared that, under s. 47(2) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, the arbitration provisions in the two USAs were either invalid or ceased to exist.

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Ontario – A first: arbitration an appropriate alternative to judicial review – #917

BizTech v Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2689 appears to be the first application of section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17(the “Arbitration Act”) , or any comparable provisions in other Canadian arbitration legislation, to stay a judicial review proceeding (para. 151). The decision establishes that staying a judicial review proceeding under section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, in order to allow an arbitration to proceed, is not at odds with an individual’s right to apply for judicial review, depending on the facts of the case.,