[:en]The Ontario Superior Court in Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 357 relied in part on professional conduct rules to order an attorney to appear and participate in an adjudicative proceeding. The reasoning might serve as guidance for similar orders to ensure that parties complete their undertaking to arbitrate. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court directs attorney to appear and participate in adjudicative proceeding – #049[:]”
[:en]Saskatchewan – court delivers no-fuss recognition of default foreign arbitral award – #048[:]
[:en]Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench in Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v Bukurak, 2017 SKQB 322 provided a proof-of-concept application of Saskatchewan’s embrace of international commercial arbitration in its straightforward review and grant of an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award. Continue reading “[:en]Saskatchewan – court delivers no-fuss recognition of default foreign arbitral award – #048[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court enforces competence-competence principle in complex employment dispute – #047[:]
[:en]Despite disputes over the existence and the applicability of an arbitration agreement contained in their initial agreement following amendments, the parties involved in Kocur v. FirstService Corporation, 2017 ONSC 6114 were referred to arbitration by application of the competence-competence dispute because Plaintiff failed to establish a clear case that the arbitration agreement was invalid. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court enforces competence-competence principle in complex employment dispute – #047[:]”
[:en]Alberta – court relies on stated purpose of its own court rules to ensure arbitration proceeds – #046[:]
[:en]Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench in Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc v. Posco Daewoo Corporation (Daewoo), 2017 ABQB 707 demonstrated the court’s ongoing support and assistance of consensual commercial arbitration by relying on the stated purpose of its own court rules as a starting point in deciding how to resolve parties’ dispute over if and how to undertake arbitration provided in their agreements. Continue reading “[:en]Alberta – court relies on stated purpose of its own court rules to ensure arbitration proceeds – #046[:]”
[:en]Québec – court’s obiter attempts to pre-empt procedural disagreements – #045[:]
[:en]Aware that arbitration was only a precondition to eventual litigation between the parties on related issues, Mr. Justice Jean-Jude Chabot of the Québec Superior Court in Julien et Assurances Jones inc., 2018 QCCS 35 still referred the parties to arbitration but in obiter offered some observations. If heeded, his observations would simplify the progress of the parties’ dispute resolution process. In doing so, Chabot J. demonstrated the judiciary’s flexibility and ongoing willingness to enable the parties’ choice of arbitration. Continue reading “[:en]Québec – court’s obiter attempts to pre-empt procedural disagreements – #045[:]”
[:en]Ontario – Court of Appeal offers clarity for contracts containing competing wording on dispute resolution – #044[:]
[:en]Ontario’s Court of Appeal provided clarity for parties bound to contracts containing competing mentions of arbitration and litigation. In Trade Finance Solutions Inc. v. Equinox Global Limited, 2018 ONCA 12, the Court overturned a motion judge’s interpretation of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 (“ICAA”) and the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June 21, 1985, as set out in the Schedule to ICCA (“Model Law”). The Court qualified the interpretation as an error in law, and asserted that arbitration can still be binding even if it subjects only “certain” disputes to arbitration. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – Court of Appeal offers clarity for contracts containing competing wording on dispute resolution – #044[:]”
[:en]Ontario – courts consider final award which refuses to resolve dispute between some parties to arbitration – #043[:]
[:en]A short decision from the Court of Appeal, in Chambers, highlighted the shortened delay applicable in Ontario to appeals of Superior Court decisions confirming arbitral awards. Maracle III v. Miracle, 2017 ONCA 950 also dealt with the uncommon situation of an arbitrator’s refusal to make any findings regarding certain parties to a dispute despite their clear agreement to arbitrate that dispute. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – courts consider final award which refuses to resolve dispute between some parties to arbitration – #043[:]”
[:en]Alberta – court allows amendments to court proceedings despite potential subsequent application to stay – #042[:]
[:en]The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Canexus Corporation v. MEG Energy, 2017 ABQB 739 allowed amendments to a Statement of Claim despite claims that the contract on which the claims were based provided for arbitration. The court dealt with the interplay between Alberta’s Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 and the Alberta Rules of Court, distinguishing between an initial decision to allow amendments and a later decision as to whether the claims should be stayed in favour of arbitration. Continue reading “[:en]Alberta – court allows amendments to court proceedings despite potential subsequent application to stay – #042[:]”
[:en]N.L. – court stay bifurcates litigation in favour of statute-imposed arbitration of resource – #041[:]
[:en]The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division in Dewey v. Kruger Inc., 2017 CanLII 85310 agreed to stay part of a proposed class action in favour of mandatory arbitration imposed by legislation dating back to 1927. In doing so, the court acknowledged the while both class actions and arbitrations have advantages, (a) possible bifurcation of proceedings is not a determining factor to deny referring parties to arbitration and (b) if a legislature intends to exclude arbitration of a particular type of dispute, it must do so explicitly. Continue reading “[:en]N.L. – court stay bifurcates litigation in favour of statute-imposed arbitration of resource – #041[:]”
[:en]Ontario – court able to decide jurisdictional challenge on “superficial consideration of documentary evidence” – #040[:]
[:en]The Ontario Superior Court in Kanda Franchising Inc. and Kanda Franchising Leaseholds Inc. v. 1795517 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONSC 7064 determined that parties resisting their inclusion in an arbitration were entitled to a decision by the court rather than having their jurisdictional challenge referred to the arbitrator. Madam Justice Jocelyn Speyer determined that the materials were clear enough and required little if any evidence for a determination of the challenge. Continue reading “[:en]Ontario – court able to decide jurisdictional challenge on “superficial consideration of documentary evidence” – #040[:]”