In Raymond Chabot Administrateur provisoire Inc. du plan le garantie La Garantie Abritat Inc. v. 7053428 Canada Inc., 2021 QCCS 1039, Madam Justice Dominique Poulin qualified as abusive an attempt by Plaintiff to add a second claim to its existing court proceeding despite that claim still being subject to a pending arbitration. Plaintiff argued that its approach favoured efficiency by merely adding a second claim which it argued was related to a first claim already confirmed by prior arbitration and the object of the existing court proceeding. Poulin J. held that Plaintiff could not add a claim which remained uncertain and indeterminate and which Plaintiff had not yet paid, thereby lacking legal standing. Poulin J. reminded Plaintiff that the notice of arbitration served to interrupt prescription (limitation). Despite Defendants’ claim for damages for the abuse of procedure, Poulin J. ordered no damages, observing that Plaintiff’s approach stemmed from either a misunderstanding of its rights or a motivation to facilitate the process and not to abuse it.
Continue reading “Québec – addition of potential claim to existing court action deemed abusive when arbitration of claim not completed – #501”Ontario – court assists parties with stay of action, referral to arbitration, certificate against land and injunction regarding public hearing – #500
In Ghods Builders Inc. et al. v. Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. et al., 2021 ONSC 1938, Madam Justice Jasmine T. Akbarali demonstrated the Ontario court’s assistance to parties disputing land subject to an option agreement by (i) granting Defendants’ application to stay the action, (ii) referring the parties to arbitration to resolve the option agreement dispute, (iii) issuing a certificate of pending litigation against the land disputed in the arbitration and (iv) enjoining any interference with a public hearing involving Plaintiffs’ development plans regarding the disputed land. Akbarali J. preserved the opportunity for the arbitrator to resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute involving their option agreement and the local planning tribunal process which would consider Plaintiffs’ development plan regarding the land subject to arbitration.
Continue reading “Ontario – court assists parties with stay of action, referral to arbitration, certificate against land and injunction regarding public hearing – #500”Québec – residence of arbitrator in same region as parties not a criteria for deciding neutrality – #499
In Madysta Constructions Ltée v. Maskicom Inc., 2021 QCCS 2101, Mr. Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy dismissed as unfounded and subjective the concern voiced by defendant that plaintiff’s proposed arbitrator resided in the same region of the province as the parties and the municipalities involved in the dispute. [informal translation] ‘If such a criteria regarding the residence of an arbitrator or a judge was retained, virtually no arbitrator or judge could sit in a judicial district in which they lived because it is generally in that same district in which the parties they will hear also reside’. Geoffroy J. also dismissed defendant’s concern that plaintiff’s counsel had alone contacted the arbitrator prior to proposing him. Geoffroy J. reproduced the brief response from the arbitrator which confirmed his acceptance of the nomination and the absence of conflict.
Continue reading “Québec – residence of arbitrator in same region as parties not a criteria for deciding neutrality – #499”B.C. – adverse inferences and undocumented terms thwart proof of binding settlement alleged in mediation – #498
In Govorcin Fisheries Ltd. v. Medanic Fisheries Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1092, Mr. Justice Frits E. Verhoeven dismissed Defendants’ claim that the parties had entered into a binding, verbal settlement agreement, determining that Defendants failed to meet the elements of an enforceable settlement set out in Apotex Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., 2016 FCA 155. Despite the complexity of the issues and disputed amount, the parties did not document the terms which Defendants alleged formed the parties’ agreement concluded during mediation. “This case illustrates the difficulty of attempting to prove that a settlement agreement was reached verbally at a mediation, where nothing was signed by the parties signifying their agreement to a settlement, and, further, where there was no consensus between them that a settlement had been achieved”. At the hearing to enforce the alleged settlement agreement, Verhoeven J. also drew adverse inferences based on the “unexplained” absence of “obviously a key material witness” who participated on Defendants’ behalf in the mediation and could have attended to challenge the facts adduced by Plaintiff.
Continue reading “B.C. – adverse inferences and undocumented terms thwart proof of binding settlement alleged in mediation – #498”Ontario – statutory undertaking to mediate/arbitrate contract disputes inapplicable if dispute’s “substance” involves breach of legislation – #497
In Carleton Condominium v. Poirier, 2021 ONSC 3778, Mr. Justice Paul B. Kane refused to convert Applicant’s application into an action despite Respondents’ submissions that Applicant had not engaged in mediation and arbitration before commencing the application. An application would proceed on a record comprised of affidavit and cross-examination evidence whereas an action would lead to a hearing with viva voce witnesses and more extensive pre-trial procedural steps. Even though some of Applicant’s relief appeared to qualify as a disagreement for which the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19 imposed mediation and arbitration, Kane J. determined that (i) the “substance” of the application involved breaches of the legislation for which mediation and arbitration were not imposed and (ii) Applicant’s reliance on those breaches was not “to avoid mediation and arbitration”.
Continue reading “Ontario – statutory undertaking to mediate/arbitrate contract disputes inapplicable if dispute’s “substance” involves breach of legislation – #497”Ontario – court to consider application of Indian Act seizure exemptions to contingency agreement related to arbitration award – #496
In Bogue v. Miracle, 2021 ONCA 278, Ontario’s Court of Appeal remitted back to the applications judge an order appointing a receiver because the record did not provide the Court with a record relevant to argument that the order contravened exemptions from seizure provided in the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-5. The order issued pursuant to section 101 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 and upon application by the attorney for the successful arbitration party ACM who had signed a contingency agreement with that attorney as part of his retainer to represent ACM in the arbitration. The attorney sought the appointment of a receiver to “realize upon the debt for his benefit and [ACM]’s other creditors”.
Continue reading “Ontario – court to consider application of Indian Act seizure exemptions to contingency agreement related to arbitration award – #496”Québec – defendants must pay mediation fees when they refuse to participate in mediation court ordered at their request – #495
In Zen & Sens Inc. v. Entreprises Érick Boucher Inc., 2021 QCCQ 4224, Mr. Justice Pierre Cliche ordered Defendants to pay their and Plaintiff’s costs for a mediation in which Cliche J., upon application by Defendants, ordered the parties to engage but in which Defendants then refused to participate. Though nominal, the mediator’s fees had been paid by Plaintiff due to Defendants’ refusal to participate and Plaintiff added those fees to its claims in its initial action which Cliche J. had suspended pending the mediation. Cliche J. did not homologate a costs award which had issued in an arbitration but ordered repayment as a distinct head of recovery in the litigation which he had suspended.
Continue reading “Québec – defendants must pay mediation fees when they refuse to participate in mediation court ordered at their request – #495”Ontario – correctness standard applies on appeal of arbitration award under contract prescribed by statute – #494
In Kumer v. MTCC No. 775, 2021 ONSC 1181, Madam Justice Audrey P. Ramsay determined that a correctness standard applied to appeals of arbitration awards rendered under the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19.Ramsay J. observed that neither party argued Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and she accepted the guidance set out in (i) 90 George Street Ltd. v. Ottawa-Carleton Standard, 2015 ONSC 336 which noted that “arbitration pursuant to the Condominium Act is distinguishable and very different from the arbitration of a commercial dispute” and (ii) Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590 v. The Registered Owners and Mortgagees of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 590, 2020 ONCA 471 which remarked that a condominium declaration is “a special form of contract, the structure of which is prescribed by statute. It must adhere to certain statutory requirements”. Both decisions distinguished Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 633 because it concerned commercial arbitration. Ramsay J. agreed with the Court of Appeal’s comments in 2020 that “while a declaration under the Condominium Act could be characterized as a contract, [it] is not the type of private contract negotiated between two parties, to which the comments in Sattva were directed. A declaration is a special form of contract, the structure of which is prescribed by statute. It must adhere to certain statutory requirements”.
Continue reading “Ontario – correctness standard applies on appeal of arbitration award under contract prescribed by statute – #494”Ontario – jurisdiction to correct/amend document affecting others reserved to Superior Court by legislation – #493
In Mensula Bancorp Inc. v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 137, 2021 ONSC 2575, Madam Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette set aside an award in which the arbitrator, unsatisfied with the interpretation given by the “plain language” of a condominium declaration, “purported to deal with and correct what he thought were errors and inconsistencies”. Doing so “crossed the line between interpretation and correction/amendment” and decided a matter beyond the scope of the agreement to arbitrate, justifying Vermette J.’s intervention under section 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. Because a condominium declaration is “the equivalent of the constitution of a condominium corporation” and, registered, impacts current and prospective condominium owners, section 109 of the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 19 reserves jurisdiction to the Superior Court to correct alleged errors and inconsistencies. The parties also reiterated that jurisdiction in their agreement to arbitrate which itself appeared in their applicable documents by virtue of that same legislation.
Continue reading “Ontario – jurisdiction to correct/amend document affecting others reserved to Superior Court by legislation – #493”Alberta – allocation of lien security to subcontractors adjourned pending arbitration between owners and general contractor – #492
In Avli BRC Developments Inc v. BMP Construction Management Ltd, 2021 ABQB 412, Master Andrew R. Robertson Q.C. adjourned an application for costs claimed against security provided further to an order under Alberta’s Builders’ Lien Act, RSA 2000, c B-7, holding that he could not determine and allocate amounts owing to subcontractors or related costs until a pending arbitration decided the amounts owing between the building owners and the general contractor.
Continue reading “Alberta – allocation of lien security to subcontractors adjourned pending arbitration between owners and general contractor – #492”