Arbitration Matters

In litigation instituted by A against S/B, with M forced to intervene by B, Mr. Justice Jean-François Michaud in ArcelorMittal Exploitation minière Canada v. SNC-Lavalin Inc., 2021 QCCS 202 refused to grant S/B’s and M’s applications to dismiss which invoked abuse of procedure based on a prior arbitral award between A and M.  A chose not to involve M in the litigation but B had forced M’s intervention as part of B’s defense against A. Michaud J. held that (i) S/B were not parties in the arbitration and the arbitration did not address their liability and (ii) M could not object to the expense of defending in a second, separate instance in which B had forced M’s intervention. Recognizing that M had spent millions to successfully contest similar claims by A in the arbitration, Michaud J. concluded that M’s additional expense stemmed from the arbitration clause it had accepted.  Despite a successful result for M in the arbitration with A, Michaud J. observed that the trial judge might draw conclusions similar to or different from the arbitration and eliminating the risks of contradictory judgments was impossible. 

Despite the brevity of her decision, Madam Justice Carole Therrien in Dupont v. Langlois, 2021 QCCS 136 underscored a key distinction between the court’s oversight triggered by parties litigating before the court despite a binding agreements to arbitrate.  Though Plaintiff voluntarily discontinued his action following Defendant’s application to decline jurisdiction, Therrien J. held that Defendant’s claim for abuse of procedure pursuant to articles 51-56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.0 was made before Plaintiff’s discontinuance and in the context of management of the litigation.  Acknowledging that the action stemmed from a dispute involving the contract, Therrien J. determined that the alleged procedural abuse by Plaintiff took place in the context of a judicial procedure before the Superior Court and it is the court which had the authority to sanction abuse, if need be.

In brief reasons, Mr. Justice Éric Couture in Diamond Diamond Real Estate Inc. v. Londono Realty Group Inc., 2021 QCCQ 176 dismissed an action for payment of commissions, holding that the litigants’ membership in a real estate association included bylaws submitting their dispute to mandatory arbitration.  The dispute resolution bylaw also stipulated that disputes subject to arbitration under the membership bylaw must be submitted within one (1) year from the date of the transaction.  As the action concerned an October 2016 transaction, Couture J. dismissed the action rather than stay it or refer the parties to arbitration. The facts serve as a sample situation in which parties are bound to arbitrate (i) by virtue of their membership in an association rather than having negotiated a contract and included an agreement to arbitrate and (ii) within a time frame shorter than applicable prescription/limitation periods.

In Bergeron v. 2528-1023 Québec inc., 2021 QCCS 539, Mr. Justice Babak Barin underlined (i) the importance of alternative dispute resolution and (ii) the principles applicable to submission/attornment to the court’s jurisdiction.  Barin J. first drew attention to the primacy given by Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01 to alternative dispute resolution and then commented on the general principles and particular factual elements related to parties attorning to a court’s jurisdiction. Barin J. reconsidered earlier case law which issued before recent court rules updates which now oblige litigants, at the onset of the litigation, to identify their intention to raise declinatory exceptions. His comments suggest that earlier case law must be re-read in light of newer rules requiring parties to commit earlier and clearly to their procedural decisions and to abide by their “judicial contract”. Barin J.’s comments on attornment may assist litigants to determine whether a party has or has not waived the benefit of their agreement to arbitrate. 

In Landry v. Gagné, 2021 QCCA 128, Québec’s Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a lawyer’s action which pre-empted the client’s right to require conciliation and, if need be, arbitration of a dispute over an account by way of process set out by Regulation respecting the conciliation and arbitration procedure for the accounts of advocates, CQLR c B-1, r 17.  While the process is asymmetrical in that only the client can opt not to engage in it, the Québec Court of Appeal in Conseil d’arbitrage des comptes des avocats du Barreau du Québec v. Marquis, 2011 QCCA 133 determined that the process qualified as a consensual arbitration and not a statutory and therefore exempt from judicial review.