Appeal Archives - Arbitration Matters

January 19, 2026January 23, 2026

British Columbia – Court dismisses review of leave decision finding no extricable error of law – #933

In Bear Mountain Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2025 BCCA 368, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed a review application from a Chambers Judge’s decision refusing leave to appeal an arbitral award under subsection 59(4) of B.C.’s Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2 [Act]. The Court found no error in the Chambers Judge’s conclusion that the eight grounds the applicant raised concerned questions of mixed fact and law, which cannot be appealed under the Act.

January 19, 2026January 19, 2026

Alberta – Arbitrator not Functus Officio regarding a further award after final award – #932

In Lawrence v. Wood, 2025 ABKB 594, the Court dismissed a claim that an arbitral tribunal was functus officio and precluded from issuing another award stating that one of its earlier awards was joint and several. The Court held that the tribunal still had jurisdiction to make this clarification because this issue was dealt with “implicitly” in the first award, or alternatively, to address it as a new issue that was not before it when the first award was issued. The Court dismissed the application for either leave to appeal or for an order setting aside the award.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Chris Reflects (2025) – On Court finding that 30-day deadline under Arbitration Act applies to cross-appeals – #930

In Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 402, the Court held that the 30-day time limit in s. 60(1) of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 (“Arbitration Act”) applies to all appeals from arbitral awards, including cross-appeals. The Court quashed the application of the respondents (“TDMC”) for leave to file a cross-appeal outside that statutory period. It rejected an interpretation that would have allowed reliance on the 15-day cross-appeal timeline in the Court of Appeal Rules(the “Rules”). In doing so, the Court underscored the jurisdictional primacy of the Arbitration Act over procedural rules but urged the Legislature to consider amending the Arbitration Act to provide for a separate timeline to file a cross-appeal to address practical concerns.

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Stephanie’s Reflections (2025): The Battle of the Standards of Review – #926

The standard of review for an appeal of a commercial arbitration award has been a topic of debate since the release of the administrative law decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Since then, lower courts in Canada have grappled with two opposite interpretations: the first, that the standard of review analysis in Vavilov applies to commercial arbitrations, and the second, that the standard of review for commercial arbitration awards is reasonableness, as established in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva] and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 [Teal Cedar].

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Rebecca’s Reflections (2025): Vento and the Hard-Line Consequences of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – #925

Over the last couple of years, arbitration practitioners across the country have had their eyes on the Ontario courts, which have considered several cases on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias. For this reason, I’ve chosen to focus on Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v Mexico, 2025 ONCA 82, as a year-end reflection for 2025. Vento is an important reminder of the centrality of arbitrator independence to the institution of arbitration, and how its absence (whether real or perceived) can crumble the foundation of the arbitration process.

October 3, 2025December 4, 2025

Manitoba – First CA finding reasonableness standard applies to commercial award appeals – #921

Buffalo Point First Nation v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc, 2025 MBCA 72 was the first appellate court to decide that the standard of review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 for reviews of decisions of administrative tribunals does not apply to appeals of commercial arbitration awards. (As explained below in my commentary, this italicized language is critical to the analysis of this case.) Instead, the “reasonableness” standard of review, which was established in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 and affirmed in Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32, applies. In other words, Vavilov did not overturn Sattva. The fact that domestic arbitration legislation provides an appeal right does not mean that the same “appellate standards” apply in this context. The Court applied the reasonableness review analysis set out in Vavilov, except it found that a greater level of deference might be owed to an arbitrator’s expertise given the purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, giving effect to the parties’ desire for that method of dispute resolution. In other words, this standard of review reflects the reasonable expectations of the parties.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Ontario – “No appeal” means “no appeal” (and other stuff) – #903

In Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, et al v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, et al, 2024 ONCA 933,(“Lebovic“) the Court confirmed its prior ruling in Iris Technologies Inc. v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 634 (“Iris”). In both cases the arbitrator ruled, as a preliminary question, they had jurisdiction to decide the matter before them. In both cases one of the parties unsuccessfully sought a review of that ruling pursuant to s. 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. In both cases that party attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. And in both cases the motion to appeal was quashed with the Court of Appeal holding that s. 17(9) clearly prohibits any appeal from such a review.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

B.C. – Another Competence – Competence Analysis on a Stay Challenge – #902

In Touvongsa v. Lahouri, 2024 BCCA 405 (CanLII), the Court allowed an appeal of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the basis that the validity of the arbitration clause should be properly determined by the arbitrator by virtue of the principle of competence-competence and that none of the exceptions to this principle applied on the facts on the record. The chambers judge had found the arbitration clause unconscionable and thus inoperative. The Court made it clear that the competence-competence principle and also whether exceptions apply must be determined as a threshold question.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Ontario – Natural justice does not require second opportunity to make submissions – #897

In Edenrock Holdings Inc. v. Moscone, 2025 ONSC 32, the Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, or grant leave to appeal, with respect to a claimed breach of natural justice, the supposed improper re-opening of earlier decisions, or the alleged apprehension bias of the Arbitrator who issued the Award. The Court found that there was no denial of natural justice when the Arbitrator ruled on a matter in respect of which the Applicants did not make submissions because they argued that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. They argued they should have been given a separate opportunity after the Arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Ontario – Breach of arbitration clause gives rise to cause of action – #894

In Fowlie et al v Wrestling Canada Lutte et al, 2024 ONSC 7196 (“Fowlie”), the Court considered the appeal of a motion judge’s order declining to strike a breach of contract claim made by a sports dispute resolution expert (“Expert”) against Wresting Canada Lutte (“WCL”). The Expert claimed that WCL had breached their contract by failing to engage in a contractual dispute resolution process before WCL terminated the contract without cause. The dispute resolution clause in the parties’ contract included the option to refer disputes to arbitration. The Court granted the appeal and struck the Expert’s claim. The Court held that the dispute resolution clause only applies when a “dispute” arises. Because there was no dispute as between the Expert and WCL about the validly of the without-cause termination while the contract was in force, there was no “dispute” to which to apply the dispute resolution clause. This decision is surprising in view of the separability principle that arbitration agreements survive contract termination. Arbitration jurisprudence suggests that the arbitration agreement in the contract between WCL and the Expert should have been treated as an independent agreement that survived termination of the main contact.