Arbitration Matters

January 4, 2022May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 2) – #568

In Part 1 (case update #564), I reviewed the decision of Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited, 2018 ONSC 2419, 2019 ONSC 7558, and 2021 ONSC 4604 on the standard of review to be applied on an application to the court pursuant to Model Law Article 16(3) “to decide the matter” where the tribunal has decided jurisdiction “as a preliminary question” and what evidence is admissible on such an application. In this, Part 2, I discuss the interplay between Articles 16(3) and Art 34(2)(a)(iii). So far as I have been able to determine, this issue does not seem to have been categorically resolved anywhere under the Model Law.

December 22, 2021May 4, 2022

Julie’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Allard v The University of British Columbia – #567

Costs results in domestic commercial arbitrations are often based on, or consistent with, the norms of international commercial arbitration and can differ greatly from what is expected based on standard litigation practice. This can be an unpleasant surprise for counsel and their clients who are unfamiliar with this. In Allard v The University of British Columbia Justice Douglas confirmed that the “starting point” for an award of costs in domestic commercial arbitration is that the winner is entitled to its reasonable legal fees and disbursements, or what is referred to in litigation practice as “solicitor client costs” or “indemnity costs” and not “party party” costs, which many litigators would expect. There are, of course, exceptions to this “normal rule” for assessing costs. Alberta’s Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 perhaps provides one, as is discussed below.

December 21, 2021May 4, 2022

John’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 3571 and 7714 – #566

My top pick for 2021 stands for the proposition that a foreign award creditor will not be ordered to post security for costs simply by virtue of being a non-resident seeking to recognize and enforce an arbitral award. In China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 3571, a three-person panel of the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Divisional Court”) granted leave to appeal two interlocutory orders, including the order requiring the foreign award creditor China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. (“Friction”) to post security for costs in the amount of $76,376.71. This case is important because it provides support for Ontario as an “arbitration-friendly” jurisdiction, and, as the Divisional Court noted, “[13] … it speaks to the response of Canadian courts to international comity and our relationship to the courts of other countries.”

December 20, 2021May 4, 2022

James’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – #565

My top pick for 2021 is Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 [Wastech]. For most, Wastech’s primary importance relates to the common law duty of good faith in the exercise of contractual discretion. But for arbitration aficionados, another key aspect is what the Supreme Court of Canada’s concurring Justices said, and what the majority Justices declined to say, about the standard of review applicable to appeals from arbitral awards.

December 16, 2021May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 1) – #564

A review of the 2021 case law shows that the appropriate standard of review of an arbitral award remains uncertain. Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited is interesting because it did not involve an appeal of an arbitral award or a set-aside application, in respect of which there are many court decisions. It considered the standard of review by a court where a tribunal has ruled “as a preliminary question” that it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Model Law. It provides that following such a determination by the tribunal, any party may apply to the court to “decide the matter”, which decision shall not be subject to appeal. Comparable provisions also appear in domestic legislation. The question is the role of the reviewing court asked to “decide the matter”. Confusion exists as to whether such a hearing is a “review” or hearing de novo and whether that determination has any bearing upon the standard of review of the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary jurisdiction determination.

December 9, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – partial award may determine scope of arbitration agreement for final award – #563

In Maïo v Lambert, 2021 QCCS 3884, Justice Castonguay denied an application to annul in part and modify a final award. He found that the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his mandate, including in how he ruled on matters that had been circumscribed in a prior partial award, and that the applicant was essentially seeking an improper review of the merits of the dispute.

December 8, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – Stay granted where two relevant agreements, only one having arbitration clause – #562

In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canadian National Railway Company, 2021 BCSC, Justice Iyer ordered a stay of an action in favour of arbitration in circumstances in which she found that it was arguable that the parties’ dispute fell within two contracts between the parties – one that contained a mandatory arbitration clause and one that did not. Which agreement governed the dispute was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

December 7, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – A reminder of the “hands off” approach of courts in arbitration even with oppression claims and injunctions – #561

In TSCC No. 2364 v. TSCC No. 2442, 2021 ONSC 7689, Justice Myers affirmed the “hands off” approach courts take regarding disputes that are properly the subject of an arbitration clause. The applicant condominium corporation sought an order by way of an oppression remedy or an injunction precluding the respondent condominium corporation from drawing amounts from a bank account for shared management services. The parties had already been through a lengthy arbitration regarding various disputes between them pursuant to a shared facilities agreement. Justice Myers held that the proper forum for the new disputes was arbitration.

December 6, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – Franchisor addresses Uber arbitration agreement flaws to obtain stay of proceedings – #560

In Kang v Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp., 2021 BCPC 262, Small Claims Court Judge S. Archer granted a motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration under either section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.233 or, in the alternative, section 7 of the B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2. Judge Archer concluded that the international Act applied because the parties, at the time of their agreement, had their places of business in different countries, but that it didn’t matter because the test for a stay was essentially the same. Moreover, she distinguished the facts from those in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because the income earned by the claimant franchisee was “significant” as compared with the cost to commence an arbitration under the ICDR Rules.

December 3, 2021May 4, 2022

Newfoundland and Labrador – Labour Arbitrator’s Collective Agreement Interpretation Passes Vavilov Reasonableness Muster – #559

In Pennecon Maintenance Services Limited v. Fish, Food & Allied Workers, 2021 NLSC 141, Justice Knickle ruled that a labour arbitrator reasonably interpreted a collective agreement in light of the precepts laid down in both Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] and Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva]. Although arising from an application for judicial review, Justice Knickle’s analysis provides relevant insights applicable to private arbitration disputes as they relate to contract interpretation.