Arbitration Matters

July 5, 2022July 5, 2022

Québec – Court prevents “improper attempt to circumvent” final ICC award – #634

In Eurobank Ergasias v. Bombardier inc., 2022 QCCA 802, a majority of the Québec Court of Appeal (Mainville and Baudouin, JJ.A.): (1) confirmed the homologation of an ICC Arbitral Tribunal Final Award (“Final Award”); (2) confirmed the trial judge’s decision that a Québec bank did not have to pay under a Letter of Counter-Guarantee that was called upon, the purpose of which was the evasion of the binding ICC arbitration process; and (3) overturned the trial judge’s decision to direct the Hellenic Ministry of National Defence (“HMOD”), a branch of the Greek government, to comply with the Final Award because HMOD was not an entity domiciled in Québec and homologation is for the purpose of rendering the Final Award legally binding in Québec, not in Greece.

July 5, 2022July 5, 2022

Alberta – No set aside for document disclosure complaints – #633

In ENMAX Energy Corporation v. TransAlta Generation Partnership et al, 2022 ABCA 206, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Paperny, Rowbotham, and Strekaf, JJA) upheld the chambers justice’s decision to refuse to set aside an arbitral award (the “Award”) under section 45(1)(f) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Act“). It agreed that the (“Tribunal”) document disclosure rulings of the arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”) in relation to a narrow sub-issue did not prevent the Appellants from making their case, nor did it result in manifest unfairness. Among other things, the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal did not foreclose the possibility of further document production, but that it was the Appellants who opted not to apply for the records whose absence they now complained about. The Court also held that, when viewed in context, the Tribunal relied on other evidence to reach its conclusion and the absence of the records sought by the Appellants did not preclude them from presenting their case.

June 30, 2022July 13, 2022

Ontario – “Vigorous” intervention and “difficult”, “incisive” questions by arbitrator not bias – #632

In Dufferin v Morrison Hershfield, 2022 ONSC 3485, Justice Woodley dismissed an application made pursuant to sections 13(6) and 15(1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, for an order removing an arbitrator on the basis that, “circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts about the Arbitrator’s independence and impartiality, which are alleged to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias”. Essentially, the allegations were that the arbitrator had “entered the fray” because of the many questions he asked the witnesses, pre-judged the issues, and become an advocate for the Respondent. Justice Woodley found that the arbitrator was interventionist, but that she could find no bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias; “instead, [she] found a deeply invested, engaged Arbitrator that worked tirelessly for the parties in furtherance of his mandate, which was to determine the truth of the issues before him”. The Applicants were not out of time to bring their application because the alleged conduct complained of was “cumulative”. In any event, it would be “nonsensical” to allow a partial arbitrator to continue, even if the Respondent had not objected in time.

June 23, 2022June 20, 2022

Alberta – Appeal/set aside not designed to “save the parties from themselves” – #631

In Singh v Modgill, 2022 ABQB 369, Justice Feasby denied the Applicants’ application to set aside and for permission to appeal an arbitral award pursuant to sections 44(2) and 45 of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43. On the eve of trial and after 15 years of litigation, the parties submitted their dispute to a mediation-arbitration process. The process was set out in a written agreement and provided that there would be no oral hearing and that the arbitrator was required to deliver an award within 5 days. Justice Feasby described this process as “quick and dirty”; the parties “designed a process that prioritized expediency”. The principle of party autonomy allowed the parties to choose a process that was a “departure from the norms of natural justice” and the Applicants could not now complain. He expressed the view that “the arbitrator was stuck with the process designed by the parties” and that now that the Applicants had received an unfavourable decision from the arbitrator, they had “buyer’s remorse”. An appeal or set aside application was not designed to “save the parties from themselves.”

June 22, 2022June 27, 2022

Ontario – Costs in both arbitration and court guided by same principles – #630

In Electek Power Services Inc. v. Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 2437, Justice Perell held that when awarding costs, the discretion of both an arbitrator and the court are the same: both are guided by reasonableness and the fair and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

June 21, 2022June 17, 2022

Ontario – No stay despite broad arbitration clause – #629

In FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc., 2022 ONSC 2813,Justice Ramsay dismissed the Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings under section 7 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. The Defendant sought a stay of proceedings based on an arbitration clause included in a lease agreement. Justice Ramsay concluded that, standing alone, the arbitration clause suggested that issues arising out of the lease agreement shall be determined by way of arbitration, but he decided that, interpreting the lease agreement as a whole, the arbitration clause did not extend to an issue concerning collection of unpaid rent, which could be sought by action. Therefore, Justice Ramsay declined to stay the proceedings.

June 20, 2022June 17, 2022

British Columbia – Application to stay amendments falters on attornment – #628

The case Hawrish v. Hawthorn, 2022 BCSC 849 concerned an application by the Defendants to stay amendments to pleadings on the basis that the parties had previously agreed to arbitrate those matters. The issue was whether the stay should be granted when the Defendants had already attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction over the original claim. The Chambers Judge, Justice Wilson, refused the stay application. He reasoned that the only issue was whether the stay application was brought in a timely manner. This, in turn, depended on whether the amendments raised new and discrete claims or whether they simply related to the original claims. Justice Wilson concluded that, even with the amendments, the dispute in “pith and substance” remained the same (para. 68). The amendments were “simply additional material facts” (para. 67). As a result, he found the Defendants had attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction regarding the matters raised in the amendments and the application for the stay was dismissed.

June 17, 2022June 27, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrator’s notes not a substitute for transcript – #627

In Aquanta Group Inc. v Lightbox Enterprises Ltd, 2022 ONSC 3036, Justice Morgan was asked to appoint an arbitrator when the parties could not agree. The Respondents opposed all arbitrator candidates on the Applicants’ list and requested the appointment of an arbitrator who was previously appointed by the parties in an earlier arbitration involving the same parties and the same agreements. The Respondents argued that this would facilitate costs and time savings by allowing the arbitrator to use his notes from the earlier arbitration because there was no transcript of that arbitration. The Applicants had challenged the award arising from the earlier arbitration and opposed the appointment of the same arbitrator on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias. Justice Morgan rejected the Respondents’ request to appoint the same arbitrator and found that their proposal, among other things, violated the principle of deliberative secrecy. In the alternative, the Respondents agreed to the appointment of certain candidates on the Applicants’ list. Justice Morgan chose one of those, “resort[ing] to the entirely arbitrary approach of going in alphabetical order”.

June 9, 2022June 7, 2022

Ontario – Receiver not bound by international arbitration clause with foreign seat – #626

In Royal Bank of Canada v. Mundo Media Ltd., 2022 ONSC 2147, Justice Penny found that a court-appointed receiver was not required to arbitrate claims under New York law-governed contracts that provided for JAMS arbitration seated in New York. He found that the B.C. Court of Appeal’s analysis in Petrowest Corporation v. Peace River Hydro Partners, 2020 BCCA 339, which focused on the separability of the arbitration clause, was not binding on him, and declined to follow it. Rather, Justice Penny focused on the insolvency law “single proceeding” doctrine. He found that the appointment of the receiver rendered the arbitration clause “inoperative”.

June 8, 2022May 27, 2022

Québec– Court declines homologation based upon CCAA discretion – #625

In Arrangement relative a Rising Phoenix International Inc., 2022 QCCS 1675, Justice Collier considered the interplay between: (a) the right of the winning party in an arbitration to homologate or enforce an arbitral award in the courts in arbitration legislation; and (b) the stay of proceedings in effect when a corporation is granted creditor protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”). Here, a creditor of the corporation obtained an arbitral award in its favour and applied to have it homologated and enforced as against the directors of the corporation in respect of their personal liability. Justice Collier found that the language of the CCAA and the Amended and Restated Initial Order did not stay proceedings involving a director’s liability for personal wrongdoing, even if those wrongful acts occurred while the person was a director of the company under creditor protection. However, he exercised his broad discretion under the CCAA to make orders that are consistent with the remedial objectives of the Act and extend the stay to third parties. Therefore, he refused the creditor’s application to homologate or enforce the arbitral award as against the directors personally because it would likely negatively affect the CCAA restructuring process.