Appeal Archives - Page 5 of 9 - Arbitration Matters

November 8, 2022November 15, 2022

Ontario – Foreign award enforcement upheld on appeal despite previous attornment to court – #679

In Wang v. Luo, 2022 ONSC 5544, Justice LeMay, sitting as an Ontario Divisional Court judge, upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). He rejected the Appellant’s arguments that the Superior Court of Justice erred in enforcing the award, including an argument that enforcement was improper given the Respondent’s previous attempt to pursue its claim before the Ontario Small Claims Court.

October 26, 2022October 26, 2022

Alberta – Action brought to require payment ordered in award – #676

In Tomalik v Enthink Inc., 2022 ABCA 302, the Court dismissed an appeal of the decision of Justice Gill of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, who ordered the Appellant companies to buy out the Respondents’ shares in the companies pursuant to a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement (“USA”) and a valuation done by the second of two valuators. The Respondents argued that the first valuation was too low and pursued arbitration, as result of which the arbitrator found the first valuation deficient and ordered a second valuation, which was even lower. The arbitrator ordered the Appellants to purchase the shares at the second valuation amount. When they refused to pay, the Respondents sued the Appellants for breach of contract and, in a separate action, the second valuator in negligence for failing to arrive at a fair valuation. The two actions were permitted to proceed; by accepting the valuation as binding upon them in the first action and challenging it in the second, the Respondents were not seeking “inconsistent and mutually exclusive rights”.

October 20, 2022October 20, 2022

Ontario – Does an appeal of a costs award require leave? – #672

In Schickedanz v Wagema Holdings Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5315, Justice Ramsay dismissed the motion by Wagema Holdings Ltd (Respondent on appeal) to quash Appellant Schickedanz’s appeal of a costs award. Wagema argued that leave was required under s. 133(b) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”) and so the appeal was also out of time. Justice Ramsay was not persuaded that Wagema would prevail when the issue was determined by the appeal judge. First, the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a broad appeal process, without a leave requirement for costs appeals. Second, there is nothing in s. 45 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 that requires leave to appeal a costs award or imports the leave requirement set out in the general costs appeal provision in s. 113(b) of the CJA. Third, the parties could contract out of the appeal provisions in s. 45 of the Arbitration Act pursuant to s. 3. Imposing a leave requirement to appeal a costs award would amount to judicial interference with the parties’ right to contract, which was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19. Ultimately, it would be up to the judge hearing the appeal to decide whether leave was required and, if so, whether the appeal was out of time and whether the appeal had merit.

October 12, 2022October 13, 2022

B.C. – Leave to appeal granted on question of law of public importance – #670

In The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture v. Malcolm Drilling Company Inc., 2022 BCCA 319, the Applicants (The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture and related entities) sought leave to appeal an arbitral award where the underlying dispute turned on the proper interpretation of section 8(d) of the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012 c. 13. That provision states that a claim is “discovered” “on the first day on which the person “knew or reasonably ought to have known…that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damages, a court proceeding would have been an appropriate means to see to remedy the injury or loss”. Based on his interpretation of section 8(d), the Arbitrator had found that the claim was not time-barred. On application for leave to appeal, even though the Arbitrator’s reasons were “careful and thorough” Justice Voith decided to exercise his discretion to grant leave. He found the question of the proper interpretation of section 8(d) met the requirements of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2 for leave as it was a question of law that ‘cannot be dismissed through a preliminary examination’ and was of public or general importance as it had received little previous judicial attention.

October 6, 2022October 13, 2022

Ontario – No oral hearing required even if one party requests it – #667

Optiva Inc. v Tbaytel, 2022 ONCA 646, raises two issues of interest to arbitration law. First, the Appellant (Optiva) made a jurisdictional objection to the arbitrator’s ruling allowing the Respondent (Tbaytel) to bring a motion for summary judgment. The arbitrator then issued a procedural order in which he ruled that he had jurisdiction. After hearing the motion, the arbitrator issued a partial award on the merits, which was in favour of Tbaytel. Optiva applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and to set aside the partial award, both pursuant to s.17 (rulings and objections re jurisdiction) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). However, the application judge found that Optiva had failed to bring its application on time and dismissed it. Pursuant to s. 17(8), it was required to do so within 30 days of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ruling, not after the issuance of the partial award on the merits. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge and dismissed Optiva’s appeal, but for different reasons. The application judge erred in finding that Optiva was out of time to ask the Court to “decide the matter” because the preliminary ruling was not jurisdictional. Relying upon Inforica Inc. v. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., 2009 ONCA 642, the ruling that the matter could proceed by summary judgment was procedural, not a ruling on the arbitrator’s “own jurisdiction”; therefore, s. 17 was not engaged. However, the appeal was dismissed because the arbitrator was entitled to decide matters of procedure, both under the Act and under the parties’ arbitration agreement, and did so. Second, the Court of Appeal held that s. 26(1) of the Act does not require an oral evidentiary hearing, even if one party requests it.

September 23, 2022April 13, 2023

B.C. – Material misapprehension of evidence is an extricable error of law – #662

In Escape 101 Ventures Inc. v March of Dimes Canada, 2022 BCCA 294, Justice Voith (for the Court) allowed an appeal of a commercial arbitral award on two grounds of significance: (1) the arbitrator demonstrated a material misapprehension of evidence going to the core of the outcome – this constituted an extricable error of law subject to appeal; and (2) an appeal is allowed with respect to “any question of law arising out of an arbitral award”, but this is not limited to errors arising from the formal award of the arbitrator. Here, the error was patent from the record, but was not apparent in the arbitrator’s reasons. The Court remitted the issue back to the arbitrator for reconsideration rather than substitute its own decision because there was no record of the proceedings, so it lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation to do so. (This was also the first appeal under the new B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2.)

September 14, 2022September 9, 2022

Ontario – Court of Appeal upholds “single proceeding” insolvency model over recourse to arbitration – #660

In Mundo Media Ltd. (Re), 2022 ONCA 607, Court of Appeal for Ontario Justice Julie Thorburn dismissed a motion for leave to appeal a decision denying a motion to stay a receiver’s court proceeding. The Appellant/Moving Party sought the stay on the basis of an international arbitration agreement. Justice Thorburn found no reversible error in the motion judge’s choice to apply the “single proceeding model”, applicable in insolvency proceedings, with the effect that the Appellant/Moving Party, one of the insolvent company’s debtors, could not require the receiver to arbitrate its claim rather than litigate it. Together with the Superior Court’s decision below, this decision provides important guidance on the interplay between arbitration agreements and claims advanced in the bankruptcy and insolvency context.

September 12, 2022September 9, 2022

Québec – Annulment – No review of the merits and no reason to appeal – #658

Balabanyan v. Paradis, 2022 QCCA 877 is, hopefully, the last stage of this arbitration saga, which has come before the Court many times before. In a previous Case Note, Québec – Annulment – No review of the merits, even if award wrong #603, I reviewed how the Court dismissed each and every reason the Appellant raised against the arbitral award made against him. In her decision, Québec Superior Court Justice Harvie reaffirmed that courts have no jurisdiction to revisit the merits of an arbitral award or the arbitrator’s reasons and assessment of the evidence when a party is seeking homologation or annulment of an arbitral award. She also confirmed the strict scope of analysis of homologation/annulment grounds according to sections 645 and 646 CCP. In an ultimate attempt to annul the award made against him, the Appellant sought leave to appeal Justice Harvie’s decision. Firstly, the Court of Appeal took notice of Justice Harvie’s assessment that the Appellant acted in bad faith in the conduct of his proceedings: by seeking to “wear the opponent out of steam by a maze of procedures and ill-founded arguments”. This increased Appellant’s burden significantly and even more considering the fact that the Appellant’s application was out of time. The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave application because the Plaintiff did not demonstrate any reason to justify his demand.

August 29, 2022August 29, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrator to determine jurisdiction/validity of arbitration clause in employment dispute – #654

In Irwin v. Protiviti, 2022 ONCA 533, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that, unless the question is one of pure law or is a question of mixed fact and law requiring only a superficial review of the evidence, questions about the jurisdiction of an arbitrator are to be arbitrated. This includes whether an arbitration clause in an arbitration contract is void for unconscionability, or for inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S. O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) or the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 (“the Code”).

August 15, 2022August 15, 2022

British Columbia – legal errors must reflect award’s actual reasons when read as a whole – #649

In The Fairways at Bear Mountain Resort Owners’ Association v Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2022 BCSC 1235, Justice Donegan considered the threshold question for granting leave to appeal a final award, which is whether the alleged errors were questions of law. In doing so she emphasized the importance of reading the award as a whole and considering what it was that the Arbitrator had actually decided. When that was done in this case, she concluded that neither of the two suggested grounds for appeal (both concerning the application of a limitation period) were questions of law alone but were, instead, questions of mixed fact and law that were based on the Arbitrator’s construction of the contract.