Appeal Archives - Page 11 of 12 - Arbitration Matters

December 22, 2021May 4, 2022

Julie’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Allard v The University of British Columbia – #567

Costs results in domestic commercial arbitrations are often based on, or consistent with, the norms of international commercial arbitration and can differ greatly from what is expected based on standard litigation practice. This can be an unpleasant surprise for counsel and their clients who are unfamiliar with this. In Allard v The University of British Columbia Justice Douglas confirmed that the “starting point” for an award of costs in domestic commercial arbitration is that the winner is entitled to its reasonable legal fees and disbursements, or what is referred to in litigation practice as “solicitor client costs” or “indemnity costs” and not “party party” costs, which many litigators would expect. There are, of course, exceptions to this “normal rule” for assessing costs. Alberta’s Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 perhaps provides one, as is discussed below.

December 20, 2021May 4, 2022

James’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – #565

My top pick for 2021 is Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7 [Wastech]. For most, Wastech’s primary importance relates to the common law duty of good faith in the exercise of contractual discretion. But for arbitration aficionados, another key aspect is what the Supreme Court of Canada’s concurring Justices said, and what the majority Justices declined to say, about the standard of review applicable to appeals from arbitral awards.

November 25, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Appeal of award dismissed after party refused to participate – #557

In Vanhof & Blokker Ltd. v Vanhoff & Blokker Acquisition Corp., 2021 ONSC 7211, the Respondents/Appellants on Appeal (“the Sellers”) sold the assets of their horticultural and garden supply business to the Applicants/Respondents on Appeal (“the Purchasers”) pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated December 29, 2014. The Sellers alleged that the Purchasers breached the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and they therefore refused to make payments under the Agreement, claiming that they were induced to enter into the Agreement by fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations made by the Purchasers. The Sellers refused to participate in an arbitration of the dispute and then appealed the final award. Justice Pollack dismissed the appeal, relying upon s. 27(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, on the basis that the Sellers had been advised of the date for the arbitration and had filed material, but had failed to participate. They were obliged to raise their objections about the arbitrator’s jurisdiction before the arbitrator at the hearing, rather than by letter.

November 24, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Historic arbitration decision is not probative evidence in interpretation of a Treaty – #556

In Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the evidentiary value of an arbitration record – from an arbitration between Canada, Ontario and Quebec over responsibility for annuity payments under a Treaty with First Nations signed forty years before the arbitration – in the context of present-day litigation between the Treaty beneficiaries and the Province of Ontario over increases in those annuities. Because of the lack of temporal proximity between the historic arbitration and Treaty formation, and the fact that the evidence at that arbitration was entirely given by potential payors under the Treaty, the arbitration record needed to be viewed with caution. It was not helpful post-Treaty evidence in interpreting the intentions of the parties at the time of Treaty formation.

November 23, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – correctness standard of review applies on set aside applications on jurisdiction grounds – #555

In lululemon athletica canada inc. v Industrial Color Productions Inc., 2021 BCCA 428, Justice Marchand, for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, dismissed lululemon’s appeal of the chambers judge’s dismissal of its application to set aside the arbitrator’s award made in favour of Industrial Color Productions (“ICP”). The issue was whether the arbitrator had acted outside his jurisdiction in awarding ICP damages that lululemon argued were never claimed in the pleading. Justice Marchand found that the chambers judge had applied the wrong standard of review – the standard of review is correctness and United Mexican States v Cargill, 2011 ONCA 622 remains the leading case on the standard of review for set aside applications on matters of jurisdiction. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 were not helpful in this context. However, Justice Marchand found that the chambers judge’s decision to dismiss the set aside application was correct; the arbitrator did not stray outside the scope of the submission to arbitration when the impugned pleading was read generously.

November 10, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Award challenged for legal error, denial of natural justice after baseball arbitration – #552

In 1150 Alberni Limited Partnership v Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCSC 2053, Justice Groves heard a petition to set aside an arbitral award or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the award, as well as a cross-petition to enforce the award. The award arose out of a final offer selection arbitration, which required the arbitrator to accept one party’s submission in its entirety and provide reasons. Justice Groves dismissed the set aside and leave to appeal petitions. The arbitrator had not erred in law or in denying the petitioner natural justice; the losing party was simply re-arguing its case. Justice Groves granted an order enforcing the award.

November 9, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Arbitration clause interpreted liberally; ambiguity resolved using regular contract interpretation principles – #551

In 9369-1426 Québec Inc. DBA Restaurant Bâton Rouge v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, 2021 QCCA 1594, the parties disagreed about whether the plaintiff could bring a class action to resolve a coverage dispute or whether the dispute was required to go to arbitration. The policy contained both a stepped arbitration clause and a clause that said that the courts in the Court District in which the insured was located shall have exclusive jurisdiction in case of a coverage dispute. The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that arbitration clauses should be interpreted in a large and liberal manner. If there is ambiguity, the usual principles of contractual interpretation apply without regard to any presumption that ambiguities are to be resolved to preserve a plaintiff’s right to resort to courts. The court found that the proper interpretation of the policy required coverage disputes to be arbitrated.

November 8, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Leave to appeal granted; arbitrator found party’s actions estopped him from raising statutory time limit – #550

Meszaros v 464235B.C. Ltd., 2021 BCSC 2021, concerned a petition to have the Court set aside or, alternatively, to grant leave to appeal, two awards related to costs where a party failed to apply within the time limit provided under the previous B.C. Arbitration Act: Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55. The arbitrator had found that the 30-day time limit for seeking costs could be subject to an estoppel that prevented the petitioner from relying on it to challenge the ability of an arbitrator to make an award of costs outside the time limit. Justice D. MacDonald of the British Columbia Supreme Court denied the application to set aside the award but granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether an estoppel could arise on the facts of this case as found by the Arbitrator.

November 4, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Parties’ “expeditious” settlement process led to 2 arbitrations and multiple court proceedings over 7 years – #549

In Grewal v Mann, 2021 BCSC 1995, Justice MacNaughton denied the defendants’ motion to stay the plaintiff’s appeal of an arbitral award to the B.C Supreme Court, pending determination of their appeal of that Court’s leave decision to the Court of Appeal. She found that there was no prejudice to the defendants and that the lengthy history of the parties’ dispute and their acrimony made it likely that the decision on the appeal of the award (which was to be heard by the B. C. Supreme Court under s. 31 of the former B.C. Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c. 55) would be appealed to the Court of Appeal and that both appeals could be heard together. She found that, “it would be more efficient to allow matters to proceed to conclusion in the BC Supreme Court and then, for the parties to decide what appeals they wish to take to the Court of Appeal”. By this point, the parties were seven years away from their 2014 agreement to sever their business relationship “expeditiously”. They agreed to a three-stage mediation and arbitration process that led to a mediated settlement agreement (the terms of which were not memorialized and became contentious), two arbitrations (one which required no written reasons and one which resulted in one page of reasons), one stay of proceedings, and two appeals (so far).

October 26, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court of Appeal does not address whether Vavilov changed the standard of review – #546

In Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2021 ONCA 592, Justice Jamal (as he then was), writing for the Court of Appeal, found that it was unnecessary to address whether Vavilov changed the standard of review analysis in Sattva and Teal Cedar in an appeal from a commercial arbitration decision. Justice Jamal held that the parties’ disagreement as to how the applicable principles of contractual interpretation should be applied to the contractual facts is, absent an extricable error of law, an exercise of contractual interpretation by a first-instance decision maker on a matter of mixed fact and law that attracts appellant deference. Further, the Court should refrain from deciding issues of law that are unnecessary to the resolution of an appeal.