B.C. Archives - Arbitration Matters

July 3, 2025July 4, 2025

B.C. – Website Terms Contained Enforceable and Not “Inoperative” Arbitration Clause – #911

In Fisher v Airfoam Industries Ltd. (Quad-Lock Building System), 2025 BCSC 758 (“Fisher”), the court considered an application to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 8 of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233 (“ICAA”). The court proceedings related to a dispute between a buyer and seller about the sale of goods that the buyer alleged were deficient. The applicant seller argued that the dispute was required to be submitted to arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause that was included in the Terms and Conditions on the seller’s website. The court found that respondent buyer had signed sales orders that referred to the Terms and Conditions and that this was evidence that he agreed to them, including the arbitration clause. The respondent buyer argued that the applicant was estopped from relying on the arbitration clause because the respondent and applicant had a shared assumption that the arbitration clause would not be used and that the parties would instead litigate in court. The respondent buyer argued that, as a result, the clause was “inoperative” and unenforceable pursuant to section 8(2) of the ICAA. However, the court found that there was no evidence of any such shared assumption and therefore there was no estoppel. The court granted the stay application. This case is an important reminder that an arbitration agreement is just a contract and grounds that can render a contract unenforceable, such as estoppel, can also render an arbitration clause “inoperative” and unenforceable for the purpose of an application to stay court proceedings for arbitration.

May 9, 2025May 12, 2025

B.C. – Stay decision unnecessarily applies convenient forum test. – #905

In Mavrakis v TELUS International (Cda) Inc., 2025 BCSC 378, the Court ruled that civil proceedings in B.C. should be stayed in favour of arbitration underway in Virginia pursuant to s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 (the “Act”). All well and good. However, the Court then performed a forum non conveniens analysis under s. 11(1) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c. 28 (“the CJPTA”) and again determined that the B.C. action should be stayed. The Act provides a complete and exclusive answer on stays of court proceedings relating to arbitration. A convenient forum analysis from a different statute for different purposes is not part of the stay of proceedings design in the Act.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

B.C. – Another Competence – Competence Analysis on a Stay Challenge – #902

In Touvongsa v. Lahouri, 2024 BCCA 405 (CanLII), the Court allowed an appeal of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the basis that the validity of the arbitration clause should be properly determined by the arbitrator by virtue of the principle of competence-competence and that none of the exceptions to this principle applied on the facts on the record. The chambers judge had found the arbitration clause unconscionable and thus inoperative. The Court made it clear that the competence-competence principle and also whether exceptions apply must be determined as a threshold question.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

B.C. – Court finds pre-condition to competence-competence – #895

The competence-competence principle is well established in Canadian law. It requires that issues relating to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction are generally first to be determined by the arbitrator instead of the court. In ONE Lodging Holdings LLC v American Hotel Income Properties REIT (GP) Inc., 2024 BCSC 2179, the Chambers Judge identified what amounts to a pre-condition, or exception, to the application of the competence-competence principle beyond those previously recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34 (“Dell”) and Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16. Those recognized exceptions are: (1) where the jurisdictional issue is a pure question of law or a question of mixed fact and law requiring only a cursory review of the documentary record, or (2) where there is a “real prospect” that the arbitrator may not be able to resolve the jurisdictional challenge due to practical barriers. Here, the Chambers Judge found that the competence-competence principle also does not apply when there is a dispute as to the existence of an arbitration agreement, as opposed to a dispute about the validity or scope of an existing arbitration agreement.

January 10, 2025January 10, 2025

Jonathan’s 2024 Hot Topic – The “overwhelming principle” applied – #886

In Creative Energy Vancouver Platforms Inc. v. Concord Pacific Developments Ltd., 2024 BCCA 128, the Court granted leave to appeal an award on the basis that there was arguable merit to the position that a panel of arbitrators had erred in law by allowing the factual matrix and post-contractual conduct to overwhelm a contract—effectively creating a new agreement. A vendor and purchaser arbitrated the application of a zoning by-law to a land purchase agreement: higher density under the by-law equated to higher compensation owing to the vendor. The arbitral tribunal ruled in the vendor’s favour. On preliminary review at the leave to appeal stage, the Court found it arguable that the tribunal had erred in law by interpreting the factual matrix in a manner that was isolated from the words of the purchase agreement. The Court said that resolution on appeal would require careful consideration of the tribunal’s reasoning and the evidentiary record. Arguments on the merits of the appeal have recently taken place and a decision from a division of the Court is pending.

December 18, 2024December 13, 2024

B.C. – Arbitrator Properly Appointed Despite No Signed Agreement – #881

In Pomerleau Inc. v 4HD Construction Ltd., 2024 BCSC 1973, the Court addressed two petitions. The first, by 4HD (the claimant/respondent by counterclaim in the arbitration), sought a ruling that the arbitrator had not, in fact, been appointed and declaring the award to be void or, alternatively, an order that the arbitrator be removed as arbitrator and the award set aside on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The second, by Pomerleau (the respondent/counterclaimant in the arbitration), sought recognition and enforcement of the award. The Court dismissed the first petition and granted the second. The arbitrator ruled that he had been appointed based on an email sent to him by 4HD advising him that he had been jointly selected as arbitrator and the had parties participated in the arbitration, even though no arbitration agreement was ever signed. The arbitrator issued an award dismissing the claims based on the claimant’s failure to prosecute the arbitration. The Court found that the arbitrator was correct that he had been properly appointed. The fact that the arbitrator was owed outstanding fees (only a few thousand dollars) by the claimant at the time he ruled on his appointment was insufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias to justify setting aside the award.

November 8, 2024November 8, 2024

B.C. – Stay motion test and the “brick wall framework” – #874

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.

October 21, 2024October 18, 2024

B.C. – Court adopts award-centric review for questions of law – #869

In Desert Properties Inc. v. G&T Martini Holdings Ltd, 2024 BCCA 320, the Court rejected challenges to a liability award and an interest award in disputes stemming from a major property development. The Court dismissed applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal for failure to demonstrate extricable errors of law in the liability award. The Court also ruled there was insufficient merit in a proposed appeal from a BCSC decision which had declined to set aside the interest award. Both parties have kept the B.C. courts busy with multiple challenges to these arbitral awards, generating three Case Comments in recent months. It can be argued that the Court’s mode of analysing extricable errors of law for the purposes of appeal has changed (perhaps ever so slightly) since its decision in Escape 101 Ventures Inc. v. March of Dimes Canada, 2022 BCCA 294, in which it found that misapprehensions of evidence that go the core of the outcome of a case are extricable errors of law.

October 7, 2024October 4, 2024

B.C. – Stay of action fails where party first brought motion to strike – #866

Montaigne Group Ltd. v St. Alcuin College for the Liberal Arts Society, 2024 BCSC 1465 concerns the issue of whether the Court should grant a stay of domestic proceedings in favour of arbitration after the defendant who sought the stay, St. Alcuin, first brought a motion before the court to strike the claims. Because this involved seeking substantive relief from the Court, it held that the defendant had attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction and waived its right to arbitration and also taken steps that rendered the arbitration clause inoperative. Therefore, the stay of proceedings was denied under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2.

August 16, 2024August 12, 2024

B.C. – Questions of issue estoppel not always extricable questions of law – #855

In Magnum Management Inc. v Chilliwack Hangar Corp., 2024 BCCA 212 [Magnum Management], the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal an arbitration award. The applicant sought leave on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to apply, or misapplied, the legal principle of issue estoppel, had misapprehended another arbitrator’s reasons in a prior arbitration involving the same contractual clauses, and had not anchored the award in either party’s submissions. The Court found that the applicant had failed to identify an extricable question of law under s. 59(3) of British Columbia’s Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 [“Act”].