Arbitration Matters

July 7, 2023July 10, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide derivative action without court authorization – #753

In Tidan inc. c. Trria Design inc., 2023 QCCS 1746, the Superior Court of Québec dismissed an application by the Respondent to an arbitration, Tidan inc., under article 632 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure, C-25.01 (CCP) to find that the arbitrator had erred in concluding that he had jurisdiction to hear all the claims submitted to arbitration by the Claimant, Trria Design inc. The Respondent argued that some of the claims were unarbitrable as they were derivative claims, which must be authorized by the Superior Court pursuant to Article 445 of the Québec Business Corporations Act (BCA). The Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement was broadly drafted and gave the arbitrator the jurisdiction over, “any dispute which might arise as to the interpretation or the application of this agreement”, which included oppression remedy and derivative claims.

July 6, 2023June 29, 2023

Ontario – No contracting out of the Model Law – #752

In EDE Capital Inc. v Guan, 2023 ONSC 3273, Justice Vermette dismissed a set-aside application on the basis that the applicant had failed to make out a breach of procedural fairness or lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, Justice Vermette also held that the applicable legislation in this case was the Model Law, despite the fact that the parties’ arbitration agreement referred to the domestic arbitration act.

July 5, 2023June 29, 2023

Manitoba – Limited record magnified difficulty of appeal of award – #751

In Benkie v. Nichol, 2023 MBKB 82, the Court dismissed an appeal of an arbitral award rendered in a family law dispute. The appeal record contained significant “gaps,” because evidence that was received before the arbitrator, and was considered by her in arriving at her award, was not before the appeal court. This important evidence included a transcript of the cross-examinations of witnesses at the hearing. There was no recording made of the hearing, which was what the parties agreed to as the process. This lack of information was “highly consequential to the disposition of the appeal’. The Court did not accept the wife’s argument that the Arbitrator erred in making a finding that was not supported by the evidence because the record did not contain all the evidence. The issues this case raises is relevant to commercial arbitration

July 4, 2023July 4, 2023

Ontario – Arbitration procedurally unfair – arbitrator excluded material evidence despite no objection – #750

In Mattamy (Downsview) Limited v KSV Restructuring Inc. (Urbancorp), 2023 ONSC 3013, Justice Kimmel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) set aside an arbitral award for violating procedural fairness. She found the Arbitrator acted unfairly in declining to admit relevant evidence on a new issue he himself raised in the arbitration. This decision reminds us that an arbitral tribunal’s procedural discretion, though vast and powerful, is not absolute.

June 22, 2023June 19, 2023

Ontario – Doctrine of separability cannot apply where contract nonexistent – #749

In Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 332, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an order denying the appellant’s motion to stay an action in favor of arbitration under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act. The motion judge had denied the order because the motion was based on an arbitration clause in an agreement that was never legally formed. This deprived the alleged arbitration clause of any legal force. This case illustrates one of the rare instances to which the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement cannot extend.

June 21, 2023June 23, 2023

Ontario – Courts must decide arbitral jurisdiction de novo – #748

In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2023 ONCA 393, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in an application to Ontario courts under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), being Schedule 2 to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5, for the court to decide whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction, the court must decide the jurisdictional question de novo. In other words, there is no deference owed to the arbitral tribunal on the question of that tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Court reached this conclusion after considering the strong international consensus to that effect, and reaffirmed the “uniformity principle”, which holds that it is “strongly desirable” for Ontario’s international arbitration regime to be interpreted coherently with that of other countries.

June 20, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – No re-litigation when issues have already been fully arbitrated – #747

In Doria v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Canada inc., 2023 ONCA 321, the Court dismissed the appeal of a decision striking Appellant’s Statement of Claim on the ground that it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that had already been fully arbitrated. The Court of Appeal confirmed Justice Koehnen’s decision, even though the Statement of Claim sought damages from third parties to the arbitration. Reviewing the application of section 139 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this section does not give the broad right to sue jointly liable parties separately. That provision states that where persons are jointly and severally liable in respect of the same cause of action, a judgment or release of one of them does not preclude judgment against any other in the same or a separate proceeding. In this case, the provision did not apply. The Appellant’s claim was fully heard, and the Appellant was compensated through the arbitration process and award. Section 139 does now allow for the re-litigation of issues against third parties because the claimant is not satisfied with the decision, whether the decision arose from arbitration or from a court.

June 19, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Appeal allowed where arbitration agreement “invalid”; Arbitration Act not engaged – #746

In Goberdhan v Knights of Columbus, 2023 ONCA 327 , the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an order dismissing the Defendant’s/Appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. The motion judge found that the contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid for lack of consideration. He therefore refused the stay pursuant to s. 7(2)2 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 SO 1991, c 17. The Plaintiff/Respondent argued that no appeal was permitted under s. 7(6), which prohibits an appeal of a stay decision. The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that because the contracts and the arbitration clauses were invalid, the Arbitration Act,1991, was not engaged and there was no prohibition on appeal. The appeal was dismissed on its merits.

June 8, 2023August 8, 2023

Alberta – “Participating in” not same as “taking a step in” an arbitration – #745

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v NOVA Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABKB 215, Justice Wooley dismissed an application by Dow Chemical Canada ULC (“Dow”) for an order declaring the invalidity of the arbitration pursuant to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act to enjoin an arbitration between the parties. That provision requires that the party seeking the order has “not participated in the arbitration.” The Court found that Dow did participate in the arbitration and the case provides a useful framework for what it means to “participate” in an arbitration.

June 7, 2023June 5, 2023

B.C. – High bar to arbitrate amended claims after attornment – #744

In Hawthorn v Hawrish, 2023 BCCA 182, the BC Court of Appeal addressed the often-difficult question of “who decides” key issues where arbitration agreements and court proceedings collide. The appeal concerned an amended notice of civil claim, which the defendants – who had already attorned to the court in respect of the original notice of civil claim – applied to stay in favor of arbitration. The core question was whether the amendments added new claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s refusal to refer the question first to arbitration, and the conclusion that the amendments were not new.