Domestic Archives - Arbitration Matters

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Northwest Territories – Peace River Analogized in Oppression-Driven Disclaimer of Arbitration – #938

In TSA CORPORATION et al v KPMG LLP, 2026 NWTSC 2, the Court approved a Receiver’s request to disclaim arbitration agreements between companies in receivership (the “LKDFN Companies”) and KPMG, which the LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had engaged to provide accounting services and tax advice. The Receiver had been appointed to facilitate the LKDFN Companies’ recovery from oppression at the hands of their former CEO. Relevant statutes, and the Receiver’s appointment order, authorized a broad range of potential remedies, expressly including the power to disclaim contracts with third parties. Reasoning by analogy to Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Court approved the Receiver’s request because “not doing so would compromise the fair and orderly correction” of “a scenario of exploitation, unfairness, and the obliteration of autonomy.” The Receiver’s disclaimer rendered arbitration agreements between the LKDFN Companies and KPMG unenforceable under the Arbitration Act, SNWT 2022, c 14. As a result, the Court denied KPMG’s application to stay derivative actions brought against it.

The social context of this case was key. The LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had “knowingly breached his fiduciary duties to the LKDFN Companies, including failing to disclose his own interests, which were significant, and he caused them to enter into agreements, transactions, and governance structures which were unfair and prejudicial.” The LKDFN Companies had been organized to serve economic and other needs of the First Nation, infusing this case with the “special social context attendant to the exploitation of a vulnerable indigenous group.” This context situated the case in the process of truth and reconciliation with Canada’s First Nations, including the interpretive lens of federal and territorial legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Ontario – Parties must pay arbitrator as part of good faith contractual performance – #937

In Ongko (Boswell) v. Ongko, 2025 ONSC 7235, the applicant was precluded from bringing her set-aside application. She was not only time-barred from doing so because she commenced the application after the statutory 30-day period, but the Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside an award and to remove an arbitrator for bias where a party fails to comply with the arbitrator challenge requirements of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 and the terms of their arbitration agreement, which provided for a mandatory challenge process if either party had concerns about the arbitrator’s neutrality. The applicant elected not to proceed with the challenge before the arbitrator after she refused to pay the arbitrator’s fees. She then chose not to participate in the arbitration. The Court made clear that parties must continue to pay the arbitrator’s fees to complete the contractually agreed dispute resolution process. It also found that there was also no procedural unfairness stemming from her own choices.

January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

British Columbia – Court dismisses review of leave decision finding no extricable error of law – #933

In Bear Mountain Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP, 2025 BCCA 368, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed a review application from a Chambers Judge’s decision refusing leave to appeal an arbitral award under subsection 59(4) of B.C.’s Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c 2 [Act]. The Court found no error in the Chambers Judge’s conclusion that the eight grounds the applicant raised concerned questions of mixed fact and law, which cannot be appealed under the Act.

January 19, 2026January 19, 2026

Québec – New small claims arbitration in Québec – #931

In Multi Chariots Élévateurs inc. v. 9191-0216 Québec inc., 2025 QCCQ 6048, the Court granted the Defendant’s application to annul the arbitration award rendered in a small claims arbitration process due to non-compliance with the applicable procedure and violation of the Defendant’s right to be heard; the Defendant had no notice of the arbitration. Small claims arbitration in Quebec, as discussed in this decision, is a new procedure resulting from the coming into force of the Regulation respecting mediation and arbitration of small claims, C-25.01, r. 0.6.1. This regulation stipulates that a claim of less than $5,000 brought before the Court of Quebec Small Claims Division shall be referred to arbitration (at no cost) after mandatory mediation has failed to resolve the matter. The Rules provide for a specific arbitration procedure, requiring the state- appointed arbitrator to expressly validate the parties’ consent to proceed by way of arbitration, or the matter will proceed in the courts.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Lindsay Reflects (2025) – On Third Parties in Arbitration – #929

Issues related to the involvement of third parties in arbitration can be particularly challenging in practice given that few Canadian court decisions address this topic. The purpose of this blog is to address the following three key issues related to third parties in arbitration:

Compelling third parties to arbitrate;
Joinder of third parties and consolidation; and
Obtaining evidence from third parties in arbitration.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Timothy Reflects (2025) – The (Sometimes) Long Tail of Disclosure Disputes – #928

Document production is a third rail to many arbitration practitioners, and not a likely topic for an annual reflection blog! The risk of provoking memories (possibly distant, but still visceral) of sifting through dusty boxes or their digital equivalent may be, for many potential commentators, too great. Privilege logs, relevance, and redactions, oh my!

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Stephanie’s Reflections (2025): The Battle of the Standards of Review – #926

The standard of review for an appeal of a commercial arbitration award has been a topic of debate since the release of the administrative law decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Since then, lower courts in Canada have grappled with two opposite interpretations: the first, that the standard of review analysis in Vavilov applies to commercial arbitrations, and the second, that the standard of review for commercial arbitration awards is reasonableness, as established in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva] and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 [Teal Cedar].

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

BC – BPCPA amendments prohibiting arbitration agreements in consumer contracts retrospective not retroactive – #924

In Vandenbosch v Rogers Communications Canada Inc, 2025 BCSC 1199, the Court granted both defendants’ applications to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration. The stay against the primary defendant was granted, even though the arbitration clause was contained in a consumer contract. The Court considered recent amendments to BC’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c. 2 (“BPCPA”) prohibiting arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, which came into force during a continuance of the hearing of the defendants’ stay applications. The Court found that the amendments had a retrospective effect on future disputes arising under contracts concluded prior to the amendments, but not a retroactive effect on disputes arising from facts occurring prior to the amendments. Accordingly, the BPCPA amendmentsdid not apply to the plaintiff’s action, which was based on claims that arose before the amendments were passed. Therefore, the Court granted the stay of the court proceedings. The Court also stayed claims raised against a second defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, on the basis that these claims were based on the same factual matrix as the claims formulated against the primary defendant, which was a party to the arbitration clause.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Arbitrator Removed for Management of Potential Conflict After Disclosure – #922

MTCC No. 1251 v Windsor Arms Hotel Corp., 2025 ONSC 5009 offers a cautionary tale for arbitrators when confronting late-arising potential conflicts. The Court removed the Arbitrator for a reasonable apprehension of bias. It did so, not because of the potential conflict itself, which it found would have been insufficient on its own, but because of the way the Arbitrator managed the issue after disclosure. It was this handling, rather than the conflict per se, that rendered the apprehension of bias reasonable.

October 3, 2025December 4, 2025

Manitoba – First CA finding reasonableness standard applies to commercial award appeals – #921

Buffalo Point First Nation v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc, 2025 MBCA 72 was the first appellate court to decide that the standard of review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 for reviews of decisions of administrative tribunals does not apply to appeals of commercial arbitration awards. (As explained below in my commentary, this italicized language is critical to the analysis of this case.) Instead, the “reasonableness” standard of review, which was established in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 and affirmed in Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32, applies. In other words, Vavilov did not overturn Sattva. The fact that domestic arbitration legislation provides an appeal right does not mean that the same “appellate standards” apply in this context. The Court applied the reasonableness review analysis set out in Vavilov, except it found that a greater level of deference might be owed to an arbitrator’s expertise given the purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, giving effect to the parties’ desire for that method of dispute resolution. In other words, this standard of review reflects the reasonable expectations of the parties.