Arbitration Agreement Archives - Page 4 of 15

September 25, 2024September 27, 2024

Québec – Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Appeal Mechanism – #864

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”).

September 23, 2024September 20, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator jurisdiction – dispute arose from Consent Order after earlier arbitration – #863

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.

August 30, 2024August 30, 2024

Québec – Multiple arbitrator challenges res judicata and abuse of process – #859

In B Smart Technology Inc. v Norstan Communications Inc., 2024 QCCS 2416 (“B Smart”), the Court considered an application by Norstan Communications Inc. (“Norstan”) to dismiss originating applications of B Smart, in which B Smart sought an order to replace the arbitrator who was appointed to resolve their dispute. B Smart alleged that the arbitrator was biased and that his appointment was improper. What was important to the Court’s analysis was that B Smart had brought an earlier application before the Court to challenge this same arbitrator’s appointment. That judge held that the arbitrator was impartial and that his appointment was proper. Given those findings, the Court found that res judicata applied as a full answer to B Smart’s allegations and the application was dismissed. The Court also found that B Smart’s multiple attempts to challenge the arbitrator were an abuse of process.

August 29, 2024September 3, 2024

Nova Scotia – Court orders stay in favour of arbitration – but with conditions – #858

In Colbourne Chrysler Dodge Ram Ltd., v. MacDonald et al. v Colbourne, MacDougall, and Denny, 2024 NSSC 204, the Court stayed an action in favour of arbitration. Of interest to readers of this blog, the stay was made “subject to the parties moving forward in an efficient and expeditious manner” with the arbitration. The Court also ordered the arbitrator – notwithstanding that none had been appointed – to “in the first instance, determine any jurisdiction issues and/or defences which may be raised in connection with the claims made against [certain parties which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement].”

August 28, 2024September 3, 2024

Québec – Court finds separate arbitration agreement, despite arbitration clause in contract – #857

In Roxboro Excavation Inc. v. Delsan-AIM Environmental Services Inc., 2024 QCCS 2331 the Court declined to hear a dispute between the Applicant, Roxboro Excavation Inc. (“Roxboro”), and the Defendant, Les Services environnementales Delsan-A.I.M. Inc. (“Delsan”), on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. Even though the subject contract included an arbitration clause, the Court did not interpret the clause or otherwise consider whether that clause required the parties to arbitrate the disputes. The Court instead focussed its analysis and decision on a separate agreement the parties had negotiated to resolve their disputes by arbitration and not in court.

August 14, 2024August 12, 2024

Québec – Any competent court can issue interim measures regardless of arbitral seat – #854

In GlobeAir Holding GmbH c. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 2024 QCCS 2451, the Court referred a claim to arbitration and, despite confirming its jurisdiction to do so, refused to issue interim measures. The Plaintiffs had argued that the claim, based in statute rather than contractual obligations, fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, but the Court drew on the broad language of the clause to find otherwise. Then, after confirming that the Court had jurisdiction to issue interim measures even though the dispute was referred to arbitration seated in Ontario, it concluded that no prima facie case could be made to grant Plaintiffs’ request.

August 2, 2024July 25, 2024

Québec – Petrowest factors applied: arbitration agreement held inoperative in CCAA proceedings – #852

In Arrangement relatif à Endoceutics inc., 2024 QCCS 1482 (CanLII) (“Endoceutics”), the Court, in obiter dicta, cited the stay of proceedings criteria set out in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (CanLII) (“Petrowest”) and held that it – rather than an arbitral tribunal – could rule on one party’s performance of its obligations under a contract governed by an arbitration agreement in the context of the analysis required by section 32(6) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 (the “CCAA”). Section 32 allows a debtor company to disclaim or resiliate any agreement to which the company is a party on the day on which proceedings under the CCAA commence (subject to certain conditions).

July 31, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Court won’t intervene in arbitration to order disclosure against a party – #851

In Medjuck v Medjuck, 2024 ONSC 2980,the Court dismissed an application for a de novo hearing to decide the matter of disclosure requests that were denied in part by the Arbitrator on several grounds, including that he did not have jurisdiction to grant some of the requests. The Court held that it did not have authority to intervene in the arbitration so as to hear and rule on the disclosure request de novo. It found that the request did not fall under any of grounds listed at section 6 (court intervention limited) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.

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.