Arbitration Agreement Archives - Page 5 of 15

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.

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.