Arbitration Matters

October 24, 2023October 20, 2023

Alberta – Third party beneficiary of contract bound by arbitration clause – #784

In Husky Oil Operations Limited v Technip Stone & Webster Process Technology Inc, 2023 ABKB 545, the issue before the Court was whether a third party beneficiary of a contract was bound by the contract’s arbitration clause in a dispute concerning the contractual warranties. The Court answered the question in the affirmative. While the plaintiff was not a party to the contract containing the arbitration clause, it was given rights to enforce certain warranties. Since the plaintiff chose to enforce its third party rights under the contract, it was bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The plaintiff was required to arbitrate its warranty claims, which were time-barred, as the limitation period had expired. However, the plaintiff’s negligence claims were not arbitrable as they did not arise out of the contract and those claims, which were brought by way of action, were not affected by the expiry of the limitation period to arbitrate.

October 23, 2023October 30, 2023

Manitoba – Procedural choices made for efficiency bind losing parties – #783

With what the Respondent must hope is the final chapter of a long and expensive saga, in Christie Building Holding Company, Limited v Shelter Canadian Properties Limited, 2023 MBCA 76 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal confirmed parties must live with the consequences of their decisions on how to conduct the arbitration. The parties agreed to forego obtaining transcripts of the arbitration and the formalities of entering thousands of documents as exhibits (only five were formally marked as such). C lost the arbitration and clearly regretted its agreement to limit the evidentiary record. The nature of the “record” was at the heart of the Applicant C’s two trips to the Manitoba Queen’s Bench, one to the King’s Bench, and two to the Court of Appeal. C was unsuccessful at every turn. In the end, the Court of Appeal did not agree the lower court had mistakenly declined jurisdiction by rejecting C’s attempt to recreate the record by adducing affidavit evidence of what was formally before the arbitrator. In the circumstances, the Court held the “record” would consist of the two awards and accompanying reasons, the pleadings, and the five marked exhibits.

October 13, 2023November 2, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator’s ruling on jurisdiction not an award – even if evidence heard – #782

In ADREQ (CSD) Estrie c. Lavoie, 2023 QCCS 3372 [ADREQ], the Court found that under the principle of competence-competence, unless only questions of law are engaged, an arbitrator retains the right to make determinations as to its own jurisdiction at first instance. The competence-competence principle dictates that arbitrators are competent to determine their own jurisdiction. A jurisdictional decision does not become an “award”, even though the arbitrator heard evidence relating to the substance of the dispute before deciding that he lacked jurisdiction.

October 12, 2023October 10, 2023

Ontario – A pathological med-arb clause – #781

Stothers v Kazeks, 2023 ONSC 5021 is a perfect example of the confusion about the med-arb process that I covered in my last case note: Med-arb process was “fundamentally flawed” – #775. If you want to skip to the language of the pathological so-called med-arb clause without the factual background in this case, just scroll down to just above the Editor’s Notes section.

October 11, 2023October 10, 2023

Québec – Arbitration clauses bind parties only, even if parallel proceedings – #780

In Clinique Ovo inc. v. Elite IVF, 2023 QCCA 1097 , the Court determined that an arbitration clause barred some, but not all third-party claims. The factual matrix underlying this decision is convoluted: two agreements; similar but not identical arbitration clauses; and multiple actors. The background facts are sensational: an alleged fraudulent in vitro impregnation involving parties in Geneva and Cyprus; a birth in Monaco; disputed support payments required from a bewildered father; and, inevitably, litigation with third-party claims raising issues of arbitration clause interface with the court proceedings. Against this backdrop, the Court of Appeal decision is grounded in a key and decisive first principle: arbitration clauses bind parties to the agreement, not strangers.

October 10, 2023October 13, 2023

Ontario – Arbitral tribunal lacks power to order third-party discovery – #779

In Link 427 General Partnership v. His Majesty the King, 2023 ONSC 2433, the Court refused to enforce an arbitrator’s interim procedural order purporting to compel third-party discovery. This decision highlights the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s procedural authority over strangers to the arbitration agreement, the complexities of which I highlight in my Contributor’s Notes below.

October 1, 2023October 1, 2023

B.C. – Court articulates principles on fixing conditions in leave applications – #778

In Kingsgate Property Ltd. v The Board of Education of School District No. 39, 2023 BCSC 1266, the Court considered the text, context and purpose of s. 31(3) of the (former) Arbitration Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 55 (the “Arbitration Act”). (Comparable language appears in s. 59(5) of the current B.C. domestic Act.) That section allowed a court to attach such conditions to an order granting leave to appeal an arbitration award as it considers just. The Court determined that s. 31(3) empowered the Court to impose conditions on granting leave to appeal that will prevent miscarriages of justice. Here, the Court made two such orders sought by the petitioner Kingsgate Property Ltd. (the “Tenant”). Firstly, the Court settled the terms of security with respect to the Tenant’s appeal of an award made in a rent review arbitration (the “Award”). Secondly, the Court ordered a stay of the Award and a default notice the Board of Education of School District No. 39 School Board (the “Landlord ”) had issued for arrears of rent (the “Default Notice”).

October 1, 2023October 2, 2023

Ontario – High bar to oppose enforcement of international arbitral award – #777

In Prospector PTE Ltd v CGX Energy Inc, 2023 ONSC 4207, the Court considered an application by Prospector PTE Ltd. (“Prospector”) for the enforcement of an international arbitration award issued in an ICC arbitration. Prospector brought the application pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sched 5 (“ICAA”), which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). CGX Energy Inc. (“CGX”) opposed the application based on the procedural fairness exception in Article 34(2)(ii)(a) of the Model Law. CGX argued that it was denied the opportunity to fully present its case. However, based on the arbitral award, CGX failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove its counterclaim. The Court granted the enforcement application. Prospector, together with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2017 ONCA 939, leave to appeal to the SCC refused, 2018 CanLII 99661 (“Consolidated Contractors”), make clear that the procedural fairness exception in Article 34(2)(ii)(a) is very narrow. A court is not likely to intervene for process or public policy reasons unless the conduct or decision of the tribunal offends the principals of justice and fairness in a fundamental way.

October 1, 2023October 1, 2023

Ontario – Arbitrator to decide whether non-signatories are bound to arbitrate – #776

In We Care Community Operating Ltd. v Bhardwaj, 2023 ONSC 4747, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration under a Co-Ownership Agreement that related to a development property in Toronto. The Court deferred to the arbitrator the question of whether certain corporate entities – which were not signatories to the Co-Ownership Agreement – were nonetheless bound by the arbitration agreement contained in it.

October 1, 2023October 2, 2023

B.C. – Med-arb process was “fundamentally flawed” – #775

In Shaikh v Brar, 2023 BCSC 1285, the applicants (“Tenants”) complained about an unfair mediation-arbitration process and applied for judicial review and an order setting aside a decision of an arbitrator from the B.C. Residential Tenancies Branch (“RTB”). This case note focusses on the med-arb issues it raises, not the relevant statutory regime, the nature of the Arbitrator’s discretion under it, or the standard of review. The Court found that the med-arb process was “fundamentally flawed” and set aside the award because the RTB Arbitrator: (1) used decision-making powers in the mediation stage that should have been reserved for the arbitration stage; and (2) went beyond the scope of appropriate exhortation to settle in the med-arb context.