Appeal Archives - Arbitration Matters

April 6, 2026April 10, 2026

B.C. – Narrow basis for refusing to stay an action reiterated – #942

In Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Wiederhold, 2025 BCCA 261 (“Aspen“) the Court reversed a lower court’s finding that an arbitration clause was void and inoperative. In concluding the motions judge erred, the Court confirmed the very limited grounds upon which a court can refuse to stay an action in favour of arbitration. It closes a door the lower court in Aspen had opened and corrects the lower court’s application of the Dell Computer and Uber frameworks.

April 6, 2026April 6, 2026

Ontario – Procedurally unfair to rule based on a claim that appeared foreclosed – #941

In Foodies Curry & Shawarma Inc v Royal Paan Leasing Ltd, 2026 ONCA 26, the Court set aside a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice on grounds of procedural fairness. The judgment dismissed an application for specific performance of an asset purchase agreement but granted restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment. However, the restitution claim was not expressly requested in the Notice of Application and was raised for the first time at the oral haring. Based on the application judge’s interventions at the hearing, the defendant believed the restitution claim to have been foreclosed and made no submissions on the matter. In the circumstances, the Court held that the defendant was deprived of its right to know the case it had to meet and to meet that case.

April 6, 2026April 6, 2026

Ontario – Application to set aside award in baseball arbitration denied – #940

In Stronach v. Stronach, 2025 ONSC 7158, the Parties, who had been embroiled in years of acrimonious litigation related to their family enterprise, agreed to a settlement that included a final-offer (or “baseball”) arbitration to determine the value of the Respondents’ agreed share of the businesses. The Applicants later challenged the arbitral award, which had been rendered by a prominent business valuator. They argued, among other things, that it should be set aside because the Arbitrator relied on an expert report, which was outside his jurisdiction because it did not comply with the valuation standards agreed to by the Parties. The Application Judge dismissed the application, describing it as “very weak” on the purported jurisdictional issue. In substance, he viewed it as a challenge to the merits of the award where there was no appeal. In any event, the Application Judge held that the Applicants had “agreed” to admit the impugned expert report into evidence to challenge its weight. By not objecting to the report’s admissibility at the hearing or to the Arbitrator’s authority to receive it, the Applicants waived their ability to later raise the jurisdictional argument on a setting aside application.

The case raises a number of procedural fairness issues, but this summary will focus on jurisdiction and waiver issues.

February 12, 2026March 4, 2026

British Columbia – On appeal, question of procedural fairness is question of law – #934

In Green Light Solutions Corp. v Kern BSG Management Ltd., 2025 BCCA 408, the applicant sought leave, pursuant to s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c.6, to vary the order of a chambers judge, who had denied it leave to appeal the costs portion of a final award. Applying s. 59(2) of the British Columbia Arbitration Act, SBC 2020 c. 2, the chambers judge found that the applicant had failed to identify a question of law. The applicant’s complaint was that there was a breach of the parties’ right to make submissions on costs before the award was made. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision on the basis that the proposed appeal raised a question of procedural fairness, which is a question of law. Moreover, the legislation permits questions of law based on an allegation that a party was not given the opportunity to present its case to be raised in both an appeal and a set-aside application.

January 30, 2026January 30, 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 30, 2026February 4, 2026

Alberta – Tribunal not functus officio when issuing award after final award – #932

In Lawrence v. Wood, 2025 ABKB 594, the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal an award of an arbitral tribunal, or alternatively, to set it aside. The Applicants argued that that the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction when it issued an award stating that a prior award was to be paid jointly and severally. The Court disagreed and held that the tribunal still had jurisdiction to make this clarification because this issue was dealt with “implicitly” in the first award, or alternatively, it was a new issue that was not before it when the first award was issued.

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.