Arbitration Agreement Archives - Arbitration Matters

July 22, 2024July 25, 2024

Federal – Competence- competence: a rule of chronological priority – #849

In Attorney General of Canada v. Aéroports de Montréal, 2023 FC 1562, the Court decided the issue of a tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which is incorporated into the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 17 as the “Commercial Arbitration Code” (the “CAC”). The tribunal had made a preliminary ruling that it had jurisdiction over the commercial dispute between the parties. The Court upheld the tribunal’s finding. The issue involved a determination of whether the arbitration clause in one of three related contracts applied. This case reiterates the following key arbitration principles: the power of an arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction does not limit the powers of the Court to weigh and make its own findings of fact, on the basis of the evidence, and to consider and rule de novo on that jurisdiction; the Court must take the pleaded facts by a plaintiff as true on a jurisdiction motion; and if both interpretations of an arbitration agreement proposed by the parties are possible, priority must be given to the interpretation that favours the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

July 2, 2024July 2, 2024

Alberta – Arbitrator not functus for issuing consent award after party denied settlement – #844

In Caroll v Caroll, 2024 ABKB 227, the Court found that the Arbitrator was not functus officio for issuing a Consent Award after a settlement was reached in a med-arb process. One party denied the settlement but argued that, in any event, the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction was over after the settlement agreement and it was improper to “crystallize” the agreement into the Award. The Court dismissed this argument and found that there was a settlement. And the process was not unfair. The Arbitrator did not “conflate” the mediation and arbitration phases of the proceeding by terminating the proceeding after the settlement agreement rather than proceeding to arbitration once one party denied the settlement.

June 21, 2024June 21, 2024

B.C. – Court strictly enforces arbitration rules to foreclose leave to appeal award – #843

In Bollhorn v Lakehouse Custom Homes Ltd., 2024 BCCA 192, the Court dismissed an application by the Appellant/Plaintiff Robert Bollhorn for leave to appeal an award of an arbitrator. This outcome resulted from the Court’s application of Rule 27 of the Vancouver International Arbitration Centre (“VanIAC”) Domestic Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”) and Section 59(3) of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2. The former operates to foreclose appeals where the award is issued under the Expedited Procedures of the Rules, which the Court found applied to the case. The latter provides that there can be no appeal on a question of law where the arbitration agreement – in this case the parties’ adoption of the Rules – expressly disallows it.

June 19, 2024June 25, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s relationship with party’s lender not sufficient for bias – #842

In Ballantry Construction Management Inc. v GR (CAN) Investment Co. Ltd., 2024 ONSC 2129 (“Ballantry”), the applicant, Ballantry Construction Management Inc. (“Applicant”), brought a motion for (among other things) an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondent from transferring or encumbering its assets pending the hearing of: (1) the Applicant’s application to enforce two arbitral awards; and (2) the Respondent’s application to set aside the awards on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator. On the second issue, the Court concluded that while a “business relationship” between a party and the Arbitrator may create a reasonable apprehension of bias, here, the fact that the Arbitrator was a director and shareholder of the parent of a company that had provided a loan to the Respondent did not support a finding of bias. This case considers how close a relationship between an arbitrator and a party is “too close” if a party seeks to set aside an award based on alleged arbitrator bias.

June 7, 2024June 7, 2024

Ontario – Court dismisses action for issue estoppel based on prior arbitration – #840

In Ford v. GMP Securities LP, 2024 ONSC 271, the Court partially dismissed an action for issue estoppel, relying on a 2022 arbitral award that had been rendered as a result of a dispute between a group of shareholders (of which the plaintiff was a part) and an entity that the defendants (investment dealer and senior investment banker) had represented in a reverse take-over process. The defendants were found to be privies of the parties to the previous arbitration, even though they were not parties themselves. The only claims remaining in the Ontario action were the ones that had not been raised or decided in the previous arbitration.

June 3, 2024May 30, 2024

B.C. – BCCA goes deep and wide on partial stays – #838

Davidson v. Lyra Growth Partners Inc., 2024 BCCA 133 concerns whether there is jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2 (“Arbitration Act”) to grant a partial stay of court proceedings concerning only those matters arguably agreed to be arbitrated by the parties or whether a court is required to stay the entire action. The Court confirmed that partial stays are available under the Arbitration Act where the court action raises some non-arbitrable matters despite there being no express language permitting non-arbitrable matters to proceed in Court – unlike other provincial legislation. It set out factors that should be considered by a court of first instance in determining whether to grant a partial stay or a complete stay. It also emphasized, however, that a stay of those matters arguably agreed to be arbitrated is mandatory if the requirements of s. 7 are met. In this case it had been argued that a stay could be refused as the “essential nature” or “pith and substance” of the court proceedings related to matters not covered by the arbitration agreement. The Court confirmed that there is no “residual” jurisdiction to deny a stay on that basis. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in TELUS Communications Inc. v Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (“Wellman”) concerning the mandatory nature of stays of court proceedings that relate to any matter arguably reserved for arbitration.

May 24, 2024May 24, 2024

Ontario – Court can hear set aside despite NY forum selection clause – #837

In Tehama Group Inc v Pythian Services Inc, 2024 ONSC 1819, the Court declined to stay an application to set aside an arbitration award. The stay application was based on a forum selection clause in favour of the courts of New York. In denying the stay, the Ontario court applied an exception in that forum selection clause regarding certain types of disputes under the parties’ agreement that were to be referred to arbitration. The key issue in the case concerned establishing the “place” of the arbitration, which had not been expressly set out by the parties or determined by the arbitrator. Applying the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 (“ICAA”) and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law“) the Court determined that Toronto, Ontario, was the place of arbitration and that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was therefore the only competent forum to decide the set-aside application.

May 21, 2024May 28, 2024

Ontario – Parties share responsibility to keep arbitration moving – #835

In Bank-Strox Renovation Inc. v. Lugano View Limited, (“Bank-Strox”) the Court dismissed the defendant’s motion to dismiss a construction lien action for delay where the had parties agreed to have their dispute resolved by arbitration. As a reminder of the sharp distinction between litigation and arbitration, the Court held that a respondent in an arbitration has the same, or in some circumstances a greater, contractual obligation to keep the arbitration moving as the claimant. Simply sitting back and doing nothing is not a basis to later seek dismissal of the claim for delay. That might work in a court case but it won’t where the parties have agreed to move their dispute to arbitration.

April 24, 2024April 19, 2024

B.C. – Consumer protection claim survives stay application through last-minute amendment – #830

Polanski v Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc. concerns a defendant’s stay application brought under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2 (“Arbitration Act”). The Court dismissed the application to stay certain claims made under s. 172 of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”). The Court, relying on various appellate cases, held that s. 172 restricted the parties’ ability to agree to arbitrate and that the policy objectives of s. 172 would not be served by private and confidential arbitration. Why did the court need to re-articulate this well-established principle? Perhaps because the defendant needed to pivot after it had initially brought the application in response to the plaintiffs’ changing positions. The plaintiffs only added the s. 172 claims in the face of the stay motion and then only consented to the stay of the remainder of their claims for damages, including under s. 171 of the BPCPA, at the hearing of the application – no doubt, to the dismay of defence counsel who were facing a moving target. (A brief refresher for those in need it: s. 172 provides for private enforcement of consumer protection claims in the public interest, while s. 171 provides for a private remedy for damages or loss.)

April 12, 2024April 5, 2024

B.C. – Stay in favour of non-party to arbitration agreement in multi-party construction dispute – #828

In Vancouver Pile Driving Ltd. v. JGC Constructors BC Ltd., 2024 BCSC 344, the Court granted two applications to stay litigation arising out of a large multi-party construction dispute in favour of arbitration. The first Applicant was a contractor which had a subcontract with the Plaintiff that provided for mandatory arbitration, unless the dispute involved the owner or other project participants. The second Applicant was the owner, a non-party to the subcontract, which argued that if the litigation was stayed against the contractor, it should be stayed against the owner as well. The Court applied section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233 (“ICAA”) to stay the proceedings against the first Applicant. The Court also stayed the action against the second Applicant owner pursuant to section 10 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253 to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.