Arbitration Matters

March 3, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – No issue estoppel regarding arbitrator’s findings in later litigation – #591

In The 6^th Line Mofos Limited v Stewart, 2022 ONSC 520, Justice Healey dismissed a summary judgment motion brought by parties to court proceedings, who argued that issue estoppel applied to prevent the court from making findings that were inconsistent with those made in a previous arbitration. The plaintiffs, who were adverse in interest in the arbitration, sued a land appraiser whose report was central to their dispute and which the arbitrator found did not meet the requisite professional standards. The plaintiffs argued that this finding was sufficient to establish the negligence of the defendant appraiser and they sought in damages recovery of the costs they had incurred in relation to the arbitration. Justice Healey disagreed and found that two elements of issue estoppel could not be met: (1) the same question was not before both the court and the arbitrator; and (2) the defendant appraiser was a witness in the arbitration and was not a party or its privy.

March 2, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Merchants reselling tickets not bound by arbitration agreement – #590

In Abihsira v. Ticketmaster Canada, 2022 QCCS 164, Justice Gagnon granted authorization to institute a class action against Ticketmaster Canada (“Ticketmaster”) on behalf of consumers and non-consumers, despite an arbitration agreement between the parties. Relying on public order provisions that extend the benefits of the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c P-40.1 (“CPA”) to merchants selling or re-selling tickets, he found that the jurisdiction of the Superior Court could not be ousted by the arbitration agreement.

March 1, 2022May 4, 2022

Alberta – Previous arbitral award did not create res judicata for regulator – #589

In TransAlta Corporation v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2022 ABCA 37, TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) argued on appeal that the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) erred in law when it refused TransAlta’s application to decide, as a preliminary matter, that certain issues were rendered res judicata by a previous arbitral award arising out of a dispute between TransAlta and a legislated entity called the “Balancing Pool”. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as: (1) the AUC decision was an interlocutory ruling in an unfinished proceeding and the AUC may ultimately agree with the arbitral award; and (2) the AUC did not err when it refused to apply res judicata as a preliminary matter as it was making a decision in a different statutory context than the arbitral tribunal.

February 28, 2022May 4, 2022

B.C. – Arbitrator’s Analysis Must not let Factual Matrix Overwhelm Text of Contract – #588

In Grewal v. Mann, 2022 BCCA 30, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an order granting leave to appeal an arbitral award. In doing so, the Court of Appeal confirmed the bounds of contractual interpretation, including the principle that the analysis must remain grounded in the text of the contract.

February 25, 2022May 4, 2022

BC- Decision not to make a decision on jurisdiction grounds, not a “decision” barred by “no appeal” provision – #587

In Terrace Community Forest LLP v Skeena Sawmills Ltd., 2022 BCCA 37, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia started its reasons with, “this appeal is about the meaning of the word or. It is also about the goals of legislated regimes and the role of courts in protecting the interests of non-parties to arbitration proceedings”. Section. 29(4) of the B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2 provides that a subpoena issued by an arbitrator to a non-party can be set aside on an application “to the arbitral tribunal or the Supreme Court”. The parties to this court application disputed whether the word “or” was inclusive (A or B or both) or exclusive (A or B, but not both). The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge below, Justice Milman, that “or” is to be given an exclusive meaning. Because the non-party asked the arbitrator to set aside the subpoena first, the court had no jurisdiction under s. 29(4). Therefore, Justice Milman declined to apply s. 29, and an appeal of his decision was not prohibited under s. 29(10). The appeal was dismissed.

February 16, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court overturns decision, “deciding the matter” of jurisdiction de novo – #586

In Electek Power Services Inc. v. Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 894, Justice Perell set aside a preliminary jurisdiction decision rendered by a three-person arbitral tribunal. The tribunal found that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute. The matter came before the court as an application under section 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, which provides that the court may “decide the matter” of a jurisdictional objection where the arbitral tribunal rules on the objection as a preliminary question. Following the approach set out by the Divisional Court in The Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604 (Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited (Part 1) – #564), Justice Perell held that he was required to “decide the matter” of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate on a de novo basis. He explicitly rejected the submission that administrative law or appellate standards of review have any relevance in an application to the court to “decide the matter” of whether parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute.

February 15, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Statute gives unintended economic incentives to avoid mandatory arbitration – #585

In Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1171 v Rebeiro, 2022 ONSC 503, Justice Myers granted a stay of an application brought by a condominium corporation to require the respondent unit holder to comply with the condominium by-laws and rules, and ordered the dispute to go to mediation and arbitration. Justice Myers found that the condominium corporation had deliberately framed its relief to avoid the provisions of the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, which require mediation and arbitration pursuant to the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, if certain relief is sought. Significantly, he found that the Act provides economic incentives to the condominium corporation to seek relief from the courts rather than to go mediation and arbitration. First, the Act states that if the condominium corporation wins damages or costs in court, its full legal costs can be added to the owner’s common expenses. Second, it allows the condominium corporation to demand payment of ongoing legal costs, such as for lawyers letters, in the midst of the dispute. If the unit holder refuses to pay, the condominium corporation may file a lien against the unit, which escalates the existing dispute and creates a new one.

February 15, 2022May 4, 2022

B.C. – No breach of dispute resolution clause, no damages where party refused communication to resolve dispute – #584

In JM Bay Properties Inc. v Tung Cheng Yuen Buddhist Association, 2022 BCSC 81, Justice Walker found that a contract’s dispute resolution clause which provided that “parties shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve their dispute by amicable negotiations and agree to provide, without prejudice, frank, candid and timely disclosure of relevant facts, information and documents to facilitate these negotiations” was not breached in circumstances where a party decided not to engage in any further communication with the other party to resolve a dispute between them. Justice Walker noted that the party alleging breach did not raise its complaint about the dispute resolution clause at the time of the contract’s termination. Finally, he held that even if the party were in breach, the party alleging the breach failed to establish that it had suffered any damages.

February 11, 2022May 4, 2022

Alberta –No appeal of decision refusing leave to appeal arbitration award, despite s. 48 of Alberta Arbitration Act – #583

In 719491 Alberta Inc v Canada Life Assurance Company, 2021 ABCA 419, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal of Alberta denied the applicant’s requests (i) for permission to appeal the chambers judge’s order refusing leave to appeal the arbitration award (the “Leave to Appeal Request”)and (ii) for permission to appeal the chambers judge’s dismissal of its application to set aside the award (the “Set Aside Request”). As a preliminary matter on the Leave to Appeal Request, the applicant asked the Court to reconsider its previous decision in Sherwin-Williams Company v. Walls Alive (Edmonton) Ltd., 2003 ABCA 191(“Sherwin-Williams”), which held that leave to appeal decisions are not appealable to the Court of Appeal under s. 48 of Alberta’s Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Arbitration Act”). Section 48 provides, in relevant part, that an appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench on an appeal of an award (s. 44) may be made to the Court of Appeal with leave. However, based on the case law on the test for leave to reconsider a previous decision, which includes whether the decision has some “obvious, demonstrable flaw,” the Court denied leave and ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Leave to Appeal Request. The Court similarly rejected the applicant’s Set Aside Request based on the finding that the chambers judge did not err in holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction.

February 9, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Statutory tribunal chair disqualified for bias for comments made in presence of witness during hearing break – #582

In Terrebonne Police Brotherhood Inc. v Truchon, 2022 QCCS 34, Justice Poulin granted, in part, the plaintiff union’s application for judicial review of a decision rendered by a three-person statutory tribunal. The tribunal had dismissed the union’s motion for an order disqualifying the entire tribunal based upon comments made by the chair, which were overheard by a witness and an observer during a break in the hearing. Justice Poulin set aside the tribunal’s ruling and found that those comments demonstrated both a lack of impartiality and a lack of open mind on the part of the chair, which warranted his disqualification. However, the other two members of the panel were not disqualified, even though they contributed to the unanimous decision dismissing the union’s motion. The chair’s comments could not be imputed to them.