Arbitration Agreement Archives - Page 8 of 15

August 1, 2023August 1, 2023

Ontario – Courts will also enforce agreements in favour of court proceedings – #758

In Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. v BevCanna Operating Corp., 2023 ONSC 4015, the Court dismissed an application by Defendant BevCanna Operating Corp (“BevCanna”) for a permanent stay of the action or alternatively, a permanent stay of any claims caught by the arbitration clause in the agreement between BevCanna and the Plaintiff, Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. (“Eurofins”). The Court found that Eurofins’s claim sought recovery of unpaid fees under the parties’ contract, even though it also included claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Claims for unpaid fees fell within an exception to the mandatory arbitration clause. It permitted (but did not require) claims for unpaid fees to be brought in the courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered whether the essential character, or pith and substance of the dispute, was covered by the arbitration clause. This focus ensures that parties are held to their agreement and avoids attempts by clever counsel to plead their way around an arbitration clause.

June 22, 2023June 19, 2023

Ontario – Doctrine of separability cannot apply where contract nonexistent – #749

In Ismail v. First York Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 332, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an order denying the appellant’s motion to stay an action in favor of arbitration under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act. The motion judge had denied the order because the motion was based on an arbitration clause in an agreement that was never legally formed. This deprived the alleged arbitration clause of any legal force. This case illustrates one of the rare instances to which the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement cannot extend.

June 8, 2023August 8, 2023

Alberta – “Participating in” not same as “taking a step in” an arbitration – #745

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v NOVA Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABKB 215, Justice Wooley dismissed an application by Dow Chemical Canada ULC (“Dow”) for an order declaring the invalidity of the arbitration pursuant to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act to enjoin an arbitration between the parties. That provision requires that the party seeking the order has “not participated in the arbitration.” The Court found that Dow did participate in the arbitration and the case provides a useful framework for what it means to “participate” in an arbitration.

June 6, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Competing “jurisdiction” clauses result in application for stay being dismissed – #743

In RH20 North America Inc. et al v. Bergmann et al, 2023 ONSC 2378, the moving defendants brought both a motion under Rule 21 striking out certain of the plaintiff’s claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and an application for a stay for want of jurisdiction on the basis of arbitration clauses in their underlying contracts with the plaintiffs. They met with divided success. While granting relief on the Rule 21 motion, Justice Valente dismissed the stay application on a variety of grounds, including that there were competing arbitration and jurisdiction clauses and that there was an attornment to the court’s jurisdiction as a result of bringing the Rule 21 motion.

May 24, 2023May 24, 2023

Ontario – Peace River “arguable case” standard applies to ICAA stay motion – #739

Husky Food Importers & Distributors Ltd v JH Whittaker & Sons Limited and Star Marketing Ltd, 2023 ONCA 260 addresses the standard of proof that a party seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 9 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 2, Sch. 5 (“ICAA”) must meet in order to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement that grounds the stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41 supersedes the stay analysis articulated in Haas v. Gunasekaram, 2016 ONCA 744.

May 10, 2023May 26, 2023

New Brunswick – When is an appeal not an appeal? – #736

In New Brunswick Highway Corporation v. MRDC Operations Corporation, 2023 NBCA 19, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (the “Court”) dismissed the appeal of a decision denying an appeal against an arbitral award. The Court found that the arbitration agreement did not grant the parties an automatic right of appeal, and denied leave to appeal pursuant to section 45 of the Arbitration Act, RSNB 2014, as no extricable questions of law were present. The Court cautioned against finding extricable errors of law in a case such as this involving contractual interpretation of the arbitration agreement. The decision turned on the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, which provided both for an appeal and for no appeal.

April 26, 2023April 24, 2023

Ontario – Challenge to award for procedural unfairness and insufficient reasons dismissed – #732

In Orion Travel Insurance Co. v. CMN Global Inc., 2023 ONSC 1527, Justice Morgan dismissed an application under sections 45 and 46(1) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 for leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitral award. Among other things, Justice Morgan rejected the applicant’s argument that it did was denied its “right to be heard” based on the record, finding that this right only affords a party the opportunity to make one’s case—not to re-make one’s case after shortcomings. He also found that the Arbitrator was at liberty to borrow language from the successful party’s written brief, finding that there was no evidence that the Arbitrator lacked independent thought in doing so. In totality, Justice Morgan found the Arbitrator’s reasons intelligible and concise, and that there were no grounds to set aside the award or to grant leave to appeal.

April 11, 2023April 10, 2023

B.C. – Arbitrator’s findings binding in subsequent court proceeding – #727

In his judgment from the trial in Betts v. Zienowicz, 2023 BCSC 328, Justice Macintosh considered, as a preliminary matter, the admissibility of findings of fact made in an earlier arbitration between the same individual parties and regarding the same issues. As no appeal had been taken from the Arbitrator’s award and given the deference owed to arbitral findings, Justice Macintosh adopted the facts as found by the Arbitrator in considering the issues before him. He then went on to find in favour of the plaintiffs, as had the Arbitrator.

April 10, 2023April 4, 2023

BC – Court determines arbitrator jurisdiction, exercising exception to competence-competence – #726

In Isagenix International LLC v. Harris, 2023 BCCA 96, Justice Griffin, for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, upheld an order dismissing the Appellant’s application made pursuant to section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233 (the “ICCA”) for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. In particular, she rejected the Appellant’s argument that the chambers justice had misapplied the principle of competence-competence by deciding the question about whether the underlying negligence claim fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, rather than referring the jurisdictional matter to the arbitrator. Justice Griffin found that the chambers justice did not err in law because he came within one of the well-established exceptions to the competence-competence rule.

March 15, 2023March 9, 2023

Ontario – no jurisdiction over dispute not properly raised in arbitration – #720

In EBC Inc. v. City of Ottawa, the parties’ primary construction contract contained a multi-tier dispute resolution clause that provided for notice, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. The parties also negotiated an agreement that contained a Claims Process applicable to disputes between them that provided for the exchange of documentation, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. The parties followed the Claims Process and proceeded to arbitration on a number of issues consisting of a jurisdiction motion and then three arbitral phases. As part of the jurisdiction motion the Arbitrator held that the arbitration could only address claims that had been advanced prior to September 2018. After completion of the arbitration, EBC brought an application for payment of money from the Respondent City, which was an issue that had not been raised in the Claims Process. Justice P. J. Boucher rejected EBC’s application on the basis that as the dispute arose after September, 2018, it should have been raised using the dispute resolution process in the Contract, and not before the court.