Arbitration Matters

October 15, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Challenge to arbitrator’s integrity to be determined using bias test – #543

In Farmer v Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, the appellant wife appealed three arbitral awards arising out of a five-day family arbitration pursuant to s. 45(6)(a) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17. The wife’s grounds for appeal included that the arbitrator’s reasons were deficient and that the arbitrator’s “Clarification/Explanation Award” rendered after the parties complained that he had omitted certain issues in his first award, was an “after-the-fact” justification for the first award. The arbitrator admitted that he had had difficulty with his dictaphone when he had drafted the first award so that certain portions of it were inadvertently omitted, but said in the “Clarification/Explanation Award” that all issues had been considered. Justice Finlayson found that the “presumption of integrity” which applies to judges also applies to arbitrators and that the wife had to meet a test “similar to” the “reasonable apprehension of bias test” to rebut that presumption. She did not do so and this ground of appeal was dismissed. Justice Finlayson also concluded that the arbitrator’s reasons were insufficient, and substituted his own decision on one issue.

October 14, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court denies stay of order authorizing CCAA sale process despite ongoing arbitration – #542

In Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (Re) 2021 ONCA 613, Justice Miller refused to grant a stay pending appeal of an order in a CCAA proceeding authorizing the sale of an interest in a property development. The moving party unsuccessfully argued that the sale should be postponed until the conclusion of an ongoing parallel arbitration, the outcome of which would materially impact the value of the interest. If the sale process was not postponed, the moving party argued, the ongoing arbitration would chill the sale process and it would be impossible to know if a higher sale price could be achieved. Justice Miller held that he could not substitute his own evaluation of the efficacy of the sale process over that of the lower court judge, who had dismissed as speculative the argument that the sale process would suffer a chilling effect.

October 13, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Court favors arbitration even for related, but non-signatory, parties – #541

In 10053686 Canada inc. v. Tang, 2021 QCCS 3467, Justice Geeta Narang declined jurisdiction with respect to a dispute arising out of a Franchise Agreement. Plaintiffs were the franchisees and a director of a franchisee. Defendants were directors and shareholders of the franchisor. Justice Narang referred the case to private arbitration following Defendants’ demand for declinatory exception because the Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Justice Narang first concluded that the arbitration agreement was a “complete undertaking to arbitrate”, in conformity with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Zodiak International v. Polish People Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529. She concluded that all allegations in the Plaintiffs’ claim were related to the franchisor-franchisee relationship and covered by the arbitration agreement. Secondly, she recognized the Legislator’s intention to favor a private dispute resolution mechanism over the public justice system whenever the parties have expressed the intention to resolve their dispute out of court. Thirdly, she granted Defendants’ demand for a declinatory exception, even though all Defendants and one of the Plaintiffs were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. In interpreting the arbitration agreement liberally, she concluded that in this context ignoring the arbitration agreement because the Defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement would be to rely upon a “blind technicality”.

October 12, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Stay of portion of counterclaim not “improper bifurcation”; arbitration agreement bifurcated disputes – #540

In Mazzei Electric Ltd. v Western Canadian Construction Company Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1873, the Plaintiff applied to stay a portion of the counterclaim brought by the Defendant, on the basis that it was covered by the parties’ arbitration agreemeement. Justice W.A. Baker granted the stay while permitting the remainder of the counterclaim to proceed. In reaching her decision, she interpreted and applied a detailed and industry-specific dispute resolution clause, which allowed the parties to commence court proceedings to preserve a lien right. Justice Baker found that the Plaintiff’s lien action did not prevent it from seeking to have the Defendant’s counterclaim on other issues in dispute stayed in favour of arbitration.

October 7, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Award enforcement application met with merits arguments in leave to appeal/set aside cross-application #539

In Fogler, Rubinoff LLP v Houle, 2021 ONSC 5626, Justice Vermette heard two applications following an arbitration concerning the assessment of two accounts rendered by applicant, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, to its clients, respondents Conrad and Sheila Houle. The arbitrator issued an award requiring the respondents to pay. After they did not do so, Foglers brought an enforcement application pursuant to s. 50 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Upon such application, the court “shall” grant judgment so long as the requirements of s. 50(3) are not met – the appeal/set aside deadline has not yet elapsed, there is a pending appeal/set aside application, or the award has been set aside or the arbitration is the subject of an award of a declaration of invalidity. In other words, the merits of the award are not relevant. The respondents did not initially appeal the award, but then brought a cross-application – challenging both jurisdiction and the merits – seeking to set aside the award pursuant to s. 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act or, in the alternative, leave to appeal the award under s. 45(1). Justice Vermette found that the set aside application was really a request to review the substance of the award on the basis that the arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable or incorrect. She also dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the ground that it did not raise a question of law. Whether the facts met the required legal test was a matter of mixed fact and law. Therefore, given the dismissal of the respondent’s cross-application, she granted the Foglers enforcement application.

September 30, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Stay motion denied: case was a proper one for summary judgment, but summary judgment not sought – #538

In Jencel 407 Yonge Street Inc. v. Bright Immigration Inc., 2021 ONSC 6030, Justice Akbarali dismissed the Defendant’s motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff argued that the stay motion should be dismissed because the action was a proper one for summary judgment, relying upon s. 7(2)5 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Justice Akbarali agreed. The key facts were uncontested and the Defendant’s position in the action, which consisted mostly of “bald assertions and unarticulated legal and factual arguments”, did not give rise to any genuine issue requiring a trial. However, the Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment.

September 29, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Participating party in arbitration not granted leave to intervene in appeal/set aside application – #537

In Baffinland Iron Mines v Tower-EBC, 2021 ONSC 5639, the parties were engaged in a dispute about a project to build a railway to transport ore in Nunavut. They entered into two contracts which contained an arbitration clause. After delays in the project, one party terminated the contracts; the other claimed breach of contract and commenced an arbitration for its own losses and the losses of its sub-contractor, which participated in the hearing and had counsel present. However, that participation expressly did not constitute an agreement that the sub-contractor was a party to the arbitration. The tribunal issued a Final Partial Award finding that the contract had been wrongfully terminated, however, the tribunal was split on whether the innocent party was also entitled to recover the damages of the sub-contractor. The innocent party brought an application to set aside the award pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, and for leave to appeal the award under s. 45(1) of the Act. The sub-contractor sought leave to intervene in the application on the ground that it had an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and would be adversely affected by the judgment. Justice Pattillo dismissed the motion, in part, because “courts are reluctant to permit third parties to intervene in purely private and commercial litigation” and that this is “more so where private arbitration is involved.”

September 28, 2021May 4, 2022

Saskatchewan – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction when one party alleged to have repudiated arbitration agreement – #536

In Saskatchewan v Capitol Steel Corporation, 2021 SKQB 224, Saskatchewan alleged that Capitol Steel Corporation (“CSC”) had repudiated the arbitration agreement in written submissions made just before the arbitration hearing. Saskatchewan’s position was that these submissions denied one of the recitals in the parties’ arbitration agreement that showed agreement on a matter which CSC then put in issue in the arbitration. Saskatchewan challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction as a result of CSC’s alleged repudiation of the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator dismissed the application and Saskatchewan then applied to the Court “to decide the matter” under s. 18(9) of The Arbitration Act, 1992, SS 1992, c A-24.1, which states that, “[i]f the arbitral tribunal rules on an objection as a preliminary question, a party may, within 30 days after receiving notice of the ruling, make an application to the court to decide the matter.” Justice Clackson found that the standard of review of an arbitrator’s preliminary decision on jurisdiction, where one party alleged the other repudiated the arbitration agreement, was correctness. He held that the arbitrator was correct in finding there was no repudiation because there was no anticipatory breach. The alleged breach did not deprive Saskatchewan of any of the rights that it had under the arbitration agreement.

September 27, 2021May 4, 2022

Manitoba – Broad arbitration clause in one agreement required stay of action based on related employment contract – #535

Relying on the growing body of arbitration-friendly jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada and provincial appellate courts, the Manitoba Queens Bench in Wardrop v. Ericsson Canada Inc., 2021 MBQB 183 re-affirmed the importance of the court’s adherence to the stay provisions in s. 7 of The Arbitration Act, C.C.S.M. c. A120 (the “Act”). Justice Rempel held that an action for wrongful dismissal must be stayed. The key issue concerned the plaintiff employee’s entitlement in the severance period to bonuses made available pursuant to an agreement which contained a broad clause in favour of arbitration. That agreement was separate from the written employment agreement which the plaintiff employee alleged was breached and which did not contain an arbitration clause. However, the damages sought by the plaintiff related to the bonuses. Justice Rempel granted the defendant employer’s motion for a stay in light of the broad arbitration clause in one of the agreements. Further, in finding that there was no basis to refuse the stay under s. 7(2) of the Act, Justice Rempel narrowly interpreted the provision permitting a refusal of the stay where the matter was a proper one for summary judgment. The plaintiff employee did not satisfy the court that this exception, or any of the other bases for refusing a stay, was applicable.

September 24, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Stay motion: pleadings sufficient for “arguable case” that arbitration clause applies, despite contrary evidence – #534

In Beck v Vanbex Group Inc., 2021 BCSC 1619, Justice Fleming granted a partial stay of a proposed class action under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2. The issue before her was whether the Defendants had any evidentiary burden to meet to establish an “arguable case” that they were both proper parties to the arbitration agreement, thereby warranting a stay. The Plaintiffs argued that although one of the Defendants was not a signatory to the business agreement upon which they were suing and which contained the arbitration clause, both corporate Defendants were essentially alter egos of one another and both were liable to them. However, they argued that the Defendants’ stay application must be dismissed in the face of the Defendants’ evidence that the two corporate Defendants were entirely separate and one of them was not a proper party to the arbitration agreement. The Defendants agreed that, in the arbitration or at trial, their position would be that one of the Defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement; however, they were entitled to a stay because: (1) if the Plaintiffs were correct, the action should be stayed; and (2) if the Plaintiffs were not correct, the Plaintiffs had no claim against the non-party Defendant anyway and the action would be dismissed. Justice Fleming agreed that the issues pleaded by the Plaintiffs demonstrated that it was arguable that both corporate Defendants were proper parties, notwithstanding the evidence adduced by the Defendants to the contrary.