notes on new arbitration cases in Canada
In Johnson Bros. Corporation v. Soletanche Bachy Canada Inc., 2024 ONSC 6296, the Court found that the parties had contracted out of the right to appeal on the basis that the arbitration agreement provided that disputes were to be “finally resolved” by arbitration.
Continue reading “Ontario – “Finally Resolved” means “Final and Binding” – #890”
This year, in a landmark decision, McLaren Automotive Incorporated c.9727272 Canada Inc, 2024 QCCS 3457, the Québec Superior Court rendered a first-ever ruling that considered the validity of an arbitration appeal mechanism whereby the parties’ arbitration agreement allowed the appeal of an award to a different arbitrator. As reported in Arbitration Matters case note no. 864 (“Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Mechanism”), the Court found that such a mechanism does not offend public order principles set out in art. 622(3) of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). Therefore, it found that Québec law does not prevent the parties from agreeing to an appeal mechanism in their arbitration agreement, even though it is not provided for in Québec arbitration law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Continue reading “Josh’s 2024 Hot Topic – Consensual arbitration appeal mechanisms – #884”
In 2024, for the first time, two appeal courts considered the “brick wall” exception to competence-competence set out in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”).
Continue reading “Julie’s 2024 Hot Topic – Exceptions to Competence-Competence Litigated in Appellate Courts in 2024 – #883”
In Belanger v Pokol, 2024 ABKB 646, the Court dismissed an application by a party to the dispute to “be released from arbitration.” The Applicant argued that the resignation of the arbitrator following allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias effectively terminated the arbitration. The Court found that since the arbitration agreement provided for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator in the event of the arbitrator’s resignation, the arbitration was not terminated, and the parties were bound to continue. He ordered the parties to attempt to agree on a new arbitrator, failing which either party could apply to the Court to have one appointed.
Continue reading “Alberta – Arbitrator’s Resignation does not terminate arbitration – #882”
In Lochan v Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONCA 784 (“Binance”), the Court considered the appeal of the Motion Judge’s finding that an arbitration clause in a crypto trading agreement was void because it was contrary to public policy and unconscionable. The arbitration clause was part of a standard form contract between the appellant and crypto users. It provided that the appellant could change any part of the arbitration agreement, including the forum and governing law, and that users agreed to any amendments. On appeal, the appellant argued that the Motion Judge had failed to first consider the competence-competence principle in his analysis. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Motion Judge had followed the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dell Computer Corp. v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34 (“Dell”) and Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”) when he considered the competence-competence principle before he considered if an exception to that principle applied to allow the court to consider if the clause was unenforceable.
Continue reading “Ontario – Order of competence-competence analysis on stay motion challenged – #880”
In Burwell v. Wozniak, 2024 ONSC 1234, the Court grappled with the appropriate standard of review to apply to arbitral awards. The heart of the underlying dispute was whether the appellant Burwell’s promise of shares in his company was sufficient to establish an estoppel against him in favour of his former partner, Wozniak. This case is noteworthy because most cases since Vavilov have not weighed in on the issue and have simply said that, regardless of the standard of review, the appellant does not meet it.
Continue reading “Ontario – Court weighs in on standard of review post-Vavilov (and decides) – #879”
In Wiederhold v Aspen Technology, Inc., 2024 BCSC 1731, the Court declined to grant a stay application under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 [Act], on the basis that the arbitration clause was unenforceable for lack of consideration, contrary to public policy, and unconscionable. It applied the “brick wall framework” described in Spark Event Rentals Ltd. v Google LLC, 2024 BCCA 148 at paragraphs 19 ss.
Continue reading “B.C. – Stay motion test and the “brick wall framework” – #874”
In Bains and 10031670 Manitoba Ltd. v. Tworek et al, 2024 MBKB 111, the Court dismissed a motion to stay two court proceedings in favour of arbitration. In doing so, the Court ran afoul of some settled principles in Canadian (and international) arbitration law. These include interpreting the scope of the arbitration agreements, the test for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration, the separability presumption and concerns over inefficiency and multiplicity of proceedings where the dispute concerns both signatories and non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.
Continue reading “Manitoba – Court denies stay in favour of arbitration for several (suspect) reasons – #868”
In McLaren Automotive Incorporated c. 9727272 Canada Inc (unreported, rendered on August 2, 2024 in File no. 540-17-015649-328), the Superior Court of Quebec confirmed that parties may agree upon an arbitral appeal mechanism, despite article 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), which states the only recourse against a final award is homologation or annulment. In this case, an arbitration appeal panel appointed by the parties overturned the decision of the arbitrator, in which he denied having jurisdiction over the dispute. The Claimant then applied to the Superior Court of Quebec, requesting the homologation of the arbitrator’s decision and the annulment of the appeal panel’s decision. In this first decision addressing the validity of an arbitral appeal process, the Court confirmed the validity and jurisdiction of the appeal panel and concluded that the existence and the decision of the appeal panel was valid, considering both the relevant articles of the CCP and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”).
Continue reading “Québec – Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Appeal Mechanism – #864”
In The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, The Dr. Wolf Lebovic Charitable Foundation, the Estate of Joseph Lebovic and Wolf Lebovic v Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto and Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus, 2024 ONSC 4400, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s order that he had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute that arose after a Consent Order made in an earlier arbitration. The parties’ first dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in their agreement. They settled that dispute and the arbitrator issued a Consent Order that contained a term that referred, “any disputes regarding the matters referred to in this Order” back to him for resolution. A second arbitration did not proceed. The same arbitrator was appointed to decide the issues in dispute in a third arbitration. The respondents in the arbitration (“Lebovic”) argued that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction because the issues raised were grounded in the Consent Order and not in the agreement that contained the arbitration clause. The arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction, in part, because: (1) resolving this third dispute would necessarily involve factual consideration of the contract terms, and obligations and conduct of the parties under both the parties’ agreement and the Consent Order; and (2) the issues raised by Lebovic were all grounded in rights and obligations which were initiated by the terms of their agreement. Lebovic maintained their objection and applied to the Court under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17, “to decide the matter”. The focus of this case note is the arbitrator’s decision, because the application was decided on the basis of waiver.
Continue reading “Ontario – Arbitrator jurisdiction – dispute arose from Consent Order after earlier arbitration – #863”