Arbitration Matters

August 29, 2022August 29, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrator to determine jurisdiction/validity of arbitration clause in employment dispute – #654

In Irwin v. Protiviti, 2022 ONCA 533, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that, unless the question is one of pure law or is a question of mixed fact and law requiring only a superficial review of the evidence, questions about the jurisdiction of an arbitrator are to be arbitrated. This includes whether an arbitration clause in an arbitration contract is void for unconscionability, or for inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S. O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) or the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 (“the Code”).

August 29, 2022August 29, 2022

Ontario – Failure to pay award does not justify security for costs – #653

In Amelin Resources, Inc. v. Victory Energy Operations LLC, 2022 ONSC 4514, Associate Justice C. Wiebe dismissed a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that Victory, the Defendant/Moving Party, did not meet its onus of showing that there was “good reason to believe” that Amelin, the Plaintiff/Responding Party, had insufficient assets to pay the Victory’s costs in Ontario. Amelin’s failure to pay amounts granted to Victory under an arbitration award and U.S. Court order did not suffice.

August 26, 2022August 19, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrator resignation did not terminate arbitration – #652

In Kubecka v Novakovic, 2022 ONSC 4503, Justice Pinto determined that, on the wording of the parties’ arbitration agreement, the parties had agreed that the arbitration was not terminated and their dispute returned to the jurisdiction of the courts – even when the arbitrator resigned. He appointed a replacement arbitrator on the application of one of the parties.

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

Québec – Parallel proceedings insufficient to justify disregard of arbitration agreement – #651

In Travelers Insurance Company of Canada v Greyhound Canada Transportation, 2022 QCCQ 4746, Justice Davignon declined jurisdiction over part of a dispute – the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for recovery of damages as a result of an explosion on their property; in a separate action, one Defendant sued the other to recover any damages it might be required to pay to the Plaintiffs, relying upon a warranty provision in the Defendants’ agreement (to which the Plaintiffs were not parties). That agreement contained both a forum selection and arbitration clause. Justice Davignon declined jurisdiction over the warranty claim. He was unmoved by the fact that this would result in the dispute being debated in two different forums – the court, in respect of the principal action, and arbitration, as to the warranty claim – and gave full effect to the arbitration clause in the agreement between the Defendants.

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

Alberta – Why arbitration needs the courts – and vice versa – #650

In Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited, 2022 ABQB 461, Justice Feasby called for a “culture change” in the courts to “create an environment promoting timely and affordable access to the civil justice system” (quoting Justice Karakatsanis in Hyrniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para. 2) to avoid a “large-scale exodus” from the courts to arbitration. He took an expansive view of the court’s power to decide a case by summary trial as one way to move away from the conventional trial and solve the problem. He also commented on why we should not want all commercial disputes to be decided by arbitration.

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

British Columbia – legal errors must reflect award’s actual reasons when read as a whole – #649

In The Fairways at Bear Mountain Resort Owners’ Association v Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2022 BCSC 1235, Justice Donegan considered the threshold question for granting leave to appeal a final award, which is whether the alleged errors were questions of law. In doing so she emphasized the importance of reading the award as a whole and considering what it was that the Arbitrator had actually decided. When that was done in this case, she concluded that neither of the two suggested grounds for appeal (both concerning the application of a limitation period) were questions of law alone but were, instead, questions of mixed fact and law that were based on the Arbitrator’s construction of the contract.

August 11, 2022August 11, 2022

Ontario – Stay Granted where Competing Arguable Interpretations of Scope of Arbitration Agreement – #648

In Biancucci v Buttarazzi, 2022 ONSC 4054, Justice Myers followed the analytical framework for a stay application under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”) as set out in Haas v. Gunasekaram, 2016 ONCA 744. The arbitration agreement at issue was contained in a settlement agreement, and interconnected litigation and arbitration taking place over a decade made analysis of the scope of the arbitration agreement complex. Ultimately, Justice Myers confirmed that there were competing arguable interpretations of scope and granted the stay, leaving jurisdiction to be ultimately determined by the arbitral panel.

August 11, 2022August 11, 2022

Alberta – SCC Wastech decision applies to exercise of arbitrator’s discretion to resign – #647

In SZ v JZ, 2022 ABQB 493 Justice Marion agreed to hear an application for urgent relief, despite the Respondent’s position that he had no jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the parties were engaged in arbitration until the Arbitrator resigned unilaterally; however, the parties’ arbitration agreement continued to be enforceable. Justice Marion disagreed. He found that the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (Arbitration Act) and the arbitration agreement (to which the Arbitrator was a party) allowed the Arbitrator to resign and that because the parties agreed to arbitration only before the specific Arbitrator appointed, upon his resignation, the arbitration terminated. However, the Arbitrator was required to exercise his discretion to resign reasonably and in good faith, including in a manner that was consistent with the purposes for which the discretion was provided in the contract, in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Wastech Services Ltd v Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7. There was no suggestion that he had not done so.

August 2, 2022August 2, 2022

England – Court clarifies requirements for validly appointing arbitrators – #646

As our readers know, Canadian courts have been generating a wealth of jurisprudence on many international arbitration-related issues of late. However, there are still some lacunae in Canadian jurisprudence, which courts will often fill by referring to jurisprudence from other leading arbitral jurisdictions, including England and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Article 2A(1) of the Model Law explicitly provides for this: “In the interpretation of this Law, regard is to be had to its international origin and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith.” Because of this, Arbitration Matters will occasionally report on interesting cases from other jurisdictions which could be applied in Canada if the issue were to present itself here. One such case made our radar this week, because it deals with an issue that is seldom fought about in Canada: whether an arbitrator was validly appointed. In ARI v. WXJ, [2022] EWHC 1543 (Comm), Justice Foxton of the English Commercial Court rejected the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent’s appointee was invalidly appointed, and that the arbitrator appointed by the Claimant should therefore decide the dispute as sole arbitrator.

August 2, 2022August 2, 2022

B.C. – Leave to appeal threshold not overcome by strategic drafting – #645

In MDG Contracting Services Inc. v. Mount Polley Mining Corporation, MDG sought leave to appeal an arbitral award on the basis of section 30 (errors of law) and to set aside the award on the basis of section 31 (failing to observe the rules of natural justice) of the former B.C. Arbitration Act, RSBC 1995, c 55. Justice McDonald dismissed MDG’s petition on the basis that it failed to meet the threshold requirement for granting leave in cases where there is a “clearly perceived and delineated” question of law, or, a rare extricable question of law. Rather, MDG’s arguments raised questions of mixed fact and law by submitting that despite the Arbitrator making a correct statement regarding the law, when properly applied, it should have resulted in a different outcome. The court also rejected MDG’s argument that the Arbitrator failed to observe the rules of natural justice when he failed to explain how he reached a “summary conclusion”, as the Award contained ample detail regarding the Arbitrator’s findings.