Arbitration Agreement Archives - Page 5 of 10

January 16, 2023March 13, 2023

Timothy’s 2022 Hot Topic – At the crossroads of class actions and arbitration – #702

For this year’s “hot topics” post, I have chosen to spotlight an enduring subject: the policy conflict that can arise between arbitration and consumer class actions. The heat comes from developments in 2022 which suggest a fresh look (or two!) at how to reconcile pro-arbitration international legal commitments and policy objectives with consumer protection and class action laws.

January 6, 2023March 13, 2023

John’s 2022 Hot Topic: Summary judgment in arbitration – #699

My “hot topic” for 2022 is the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s confirmation that an arbitration can be determined by summary judgment. In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, 2022 ONCA 646, the Court approved proceeding by summary judgment motion where such a motion is consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement. While the case addressed four grounds of appeal, including whether the arbitrator’s ruling to proceed by summary judgment was a procedural order or a jurisdictional award, the central issue, and my “hot topic,” is whether the arbitrator’s partial award, which decided a summary judgment motion should be set aside. For a summary of the decision, see Case Note – No oral hearing required even if one party requests it #667.

December 30, 2022March 13, 2023

Lisa’s 2022 Hot Topic #1: Arbitrator resignation – the when, how, and what next? – #696

Although there is provision in most provincial domestic arbitration legislation and the Model Law for the resignation of the arbitrator, there is little guidance on when the arbitrator may do so and the potential consequences once that occurs. However, two cases released in 2022 are helpful in that they suggest: (1) potential limitations on the discretion of an arbitrator to resign, regardless of the rights contained in the legislation; and (2) how the parties many anticipate this issue and provide for it in their arbitration agreement if it is important, so as to minimize the inevitable disruption that arises when an arbitrator resigns.

December 6, 2022December 9, 2022

Ontario – Shareholders dispute stayed where 2 of 3 agreements had arbitration clauses – #690

In 12823543 Canada Ltd. v Mizrahi Commercial (The One) GP Inc., 2022 ONSC 6206, Justice Penny granted an application to stay the proceeding commenced before the Superior Court of Justice and referred the matter to the appropriate arbitral tribunal to decide its jurisdiction. He found that the moving parties had raised an arguable case as to the application of the relevant arbitration agreements to the dispute and that the principle of compétence-compétence therefore favoured directing the parties to address their arguments to the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction. Only two of the three agreements at issue contained an arbitration agreement and yet Justice Penny was swayed by the nature of the dispute, grounded in a broad oppression claim, and considered that the Applicant’s allegations raised issues that went straight to the ability of the shareholders to make decisions of fundamental significance to their joint project.

December 5, 2022August 8, 2023

Alberta – Court of Appeal to clarify its jurisdiction in arbitration matters – #689

In Schafer v Schafer, 2022 ABCA 358, Justice Pentelchuk ordered further briefing on the court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench refusing permission to appeal under section 44(2) of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Arbitration Act”). Although the amounts in dispute were relatively small, the case engaged several foundational questions. The first involved the overlapping, and sometimes dissonant, statutory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in matters ancillary to arbitration. Second, Justice Pentelchuk saw merit in providing interpretive guidance to parties and counsel on the appeal rights which flow from the arbitration agreement signed by the parties, which was said to be “standard” in family law arbitration in Alberta. She accordingly granted permission to brief the issue of jurisdiction to a panel of the Court of Appeal, in order to provide clarity in situations where the Judicature Act, Rules of Court, and Arbitration Act intersect. Justice Pentelchuk also asked the parties to address whether the arbitration agreement was a standard form agreement (which could make its interpretation an issue of law rather than mixed law and fact), and apply to adduce fresh evidence on that question, if necessary.

December 1, 2022December 1, 2022

Supreme Court – Peace River v Petrowest Part 2: no conflict between arbitration, bankruptcy law – #687

In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41, the central issue was whether a receiver/trustee in bankruptcy may disclaim the arbitration clause in a contract and sue in the courts when it seeks to enforce the debtor’s contractual rights against third parties. The case concerned the tension between the court’s supervisory power over all proceedings brought by a receiver/trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) RSC 1985, c. B-3, and party autonomy to contract out of the courts. Section 15 of the British Columbia (former) Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996 c. 55 required a stay of proceedings where a party to an arbitration agreement has commenced a court proceeding in respect of a matter to be submitted to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is “void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed”. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the stay application of the defendant sued by the receiver/trustee, but split 5-4 on the reasons. The majority found that the arbitration clauses at issue were “inoperative” because enforcing them would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership. This authority arises from the statutory jurisdiction conferred on provincial superior courts under ss. 243(1) and 183(1) of the BIA. It found that this interpretation of the stay provision ensures that provincial arbitration legislation and federal bankruptcy legislation are not in conflict. The minority found that the specific language of the “template” Receivership Order authorized the Receiver/Trustee to disclaim the arbitration agreements, rendering them inoperative.

November 23, 2022November 28, 2022

Ontario – Refusal to respond not a waiver to arbitrate – #686

In Justmark Industries Inc. v. Infinitus (China) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5495, Justice Williams granted the Defendant/Moving Party’s motion to stay the court action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff/Responding Party Justmark Industries Inc. (“Justmark”) commenced the court action for breach of contract against the Defendant/Moving Party Infinitus (China) Ltd. (“Infinitus”). The contract, however, contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Committee of the International Trade Council (the “ITC”) pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom. As such, Infinitus brought a motion under s 9 of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”), which incorporates Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), to stay the proceedings. In response, Justmark alleged that Infinitus had waived its right to arbitration and thus rendered the arbitration agreement “inoperative” under Model Law Article 8(1). Justmark claimed that Infinitus’s failure to respond to its requests to commence arbitration amounted to waiver. Justice Williams, however, dismissed Justmark’s argument on the grounds that there was no evidence that “[16] … Infinitus had the requisite ‘unequivocal and conscious intention,’ or any intention, to abandon its right to arbitrate.”

November 18, 2022November 23, 2022

Federal – Amazon purchasers’ class-action competition claims referred to arbitration – #683

In Difederico v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 FC 1256, Justice Furlanetto of the Federal Court granted Defendants’ motion to refer to arbitration claims asserted under section 45 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 (the “Competition Act”) by a proposed class representative plaintiff. Of interest to arbitration observers, the judgment considered the circumstances which qualify as “commercial legal relationships” within the meaning of the United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, RSC 1985, c 16 (2nd sup) (“UNFAACA”), the statute which implements the New York Convention into the federal law of Canada. The New York Convention, Article II(3), requires a court of a contracting State, at the request of a party, to refer claims covered by an arbitration agreement to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. This case also features detailed analysis of the access-to-justice exception to the competence-competence principle recognized in Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”).

November 17, 2022November 17, 2022

Supreme Court – Peace River v Petrowest Part 1: Separability Clarified? – #682

Most of the commentary about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41, is about the interplay between arbitration law and bankruptcy/insolvency law – and my next Case Note will address that issue. However, perhaps a more important issue for arbitration law was the Court’s consideration of the doctrine of separability (although it was not relevant to the outcome). The scope of its application in Canada was uncertain following the 2020 decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal under appeal, Petrowest Corporation v Peace River Hydro Partners, 2020 BCCA 339, and the Supreme Court of Canada in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”).

November 7, 2022March 8, 2023

Québec – Fragmentation of shareholders dispute stayed pending appeal on jurisdiction – #678

In Istanboulian v Kalajian, 2022 QCCA 1259, Justice Cournoyer granted leave to appeal from a judgment of the Québec Superior Court, which had referred part of a claim to arbitration. He found that the judgment under appeal caused irremediable injury to the Applicants by possibly preventing them from being heard in the appropriate forum and that it was in the interest of justice to immediately get to the bottom of the jurisdictional issue.