Domestic Archives - Arbitration Matters

Thursday May 12th, 2022Tuesday May 10th, 2022

Ontario – Set- aside application failed; dispute covered by arbitration agreement, no objection to jurisdiction – #616

In Baffinland v Tower-EBC, 2022 ONSC 1900, Justice Pattillo dismissed both: (1) an application to set aside an award from a majority of an arbitral tribunal (the “Majority Award”) under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”); and (2) an application for an order granting leave to appeal the Majority Award and Costs Award under section 45(1) of the Act. Justice Pattillo found there were no grounds upon which to set aside the Majority Award; there was no lack of jurisdiction or failure to be treated equally and fairly. Nor could leave to appeal be granted under section 45(1) of the Act because the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal.

Tuesday May 10th, 2022Tuesday May 10th, 2022

Ontario – Determining appeal rights in arbitration agreement in effect since 1960 Arbitration Act – #614

In D Lands Inc. v KS Victoria and King, 2022 ONSC 1029, Justice Dietrich granted the Landlord leave to appeal the tribunal Majority’s award in a rent reset arbitration, but ultimately dismissed the appeal and the Landlord’s application to set aside the Majority’s award on jurisdictional grounds. Her reasons summarize the legal principles to be applied to determine whether the parties agreed to a right of appeal and, in particular: (1) the effect of an arbitration agreement when it spans a period of time in which more than one piece of arbitration legislation governed that provided for different rights of appeal; and (2) as a matter of contract interpretation, the language necessary for the parties to contract out of rights of appeal. Here, the parties’ agreement was entered into in 1968 and the arbitration legislation in Ontario changed since then from an “opt in” regime to an “opt out” regime. However, the parties provided in their arbitration clause that any arbitration was to be conducted under the ICDR Rules, which were silent on appeal rights. Therefore, it was necessary for Justice Dietrich to interpret the contract as a whole to determine the parties’ intentions. The words in the arbitration agreement that the tribunal’s award “is conclusive on the parties” and that judgment may be entered in any court having jurisdiction were not sufficiently clear to express an intention to contract out of a right to appeal.

Monday May 9th, 2022Monday May 9th, 2022

Québec – Intervention by appointing authority not permitted on challenge to decision – #613

In Mullen v. Nakisa inc., 2022 QCCS 1164, Justice Lacoste rejected a request that the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre (the “CCAC”), an appointing institution, be permitted to intervene in an appeal of a decision by an arbitrator appointed by it. Applying the higher threshold for interventions in private litigation, Justice Lacoste held that there was no reason to permit the CCAC to intervene as it would not add any substance to the arguments on appeal.

Thursday May 5th, 2022Tuesday May 17th, 2022

Ontario – Uber arbitration, and class action waiver not certified as common issue – #612

In Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2022 ONSC 1997, Justice Perell dismissed a motion to certify as a common issue the enforceability of an Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Clause in the Uber standard form services agreement that members of the class signed. As a result, this issue will not be determined at a common issues trial. Class action members who did not exercise their right to opt out of the clause are still class members and may be able to negate the operation of the waiver at individual issues trials if the class action gets that far.

Thursday April 28th, 2022Tuesday April 26th, 2022

B.C. – Appeal of award granted; arbitrator re-wrote parties’ contract – #611

In Grewal v Mann, 2022 BCSC 555, Justice Iyer allowed the plaintiff’s appeal of an arbitral award dated May 15, 2020, made pursuant to s. 31 of the former British Columbia Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c. 55. That provision permitted an appeal from an arbitral award to be brought before the Supreme Court if leave to appeal was granted. Justice Iyer held that the “reasonableness” standard of review applies to appeals of arbitral awards, while acknowledging that the appropriate standard of review is still undecided at the appellate level. She allowed the appeal and amended the award to provide that disputed funds held in trust were to be released to the plaintiff. She found that the arbitrator had not interpreted the parties Agreement, but rather had written an entirely new one.

Monday April 25th, 2022Monday April 25th, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrators can decide non-legal business disputes, but not in this case – #608

The case 1107051 Ontario Ltd. v. GG Kingspa Enterprises Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 1847 concerned the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to decide a business dispute that was not legal in nature. The Applicant, 1107051 Ontario Ltd. (“110”), applied to “set aside” a decision of an arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over a dispute about whether a major real estate development project at King Street West and Spadina Avenue in Toronto (the “Project”) should include a hotel component when the parties were deadlocked on the issue. Section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act allows a party to apply to the Court to “decide” a jurisdictional issue if, as here, an arbitrator decides it as a preliminary question, as opposed to with the merits. Justice McEwen granted the “set aside”. He agreed with the arbitrator that the dispute was of a business nature and not legal and, further, that parties could arbitrate such non-justiciable disputes if they clearly and specifically intended to do so. In this case, although the arbitration clause was described as broad, the dispute was beyond its scope because the dispute was required by the clause to arise “under this Agreement”. That meant the dispute had to be about more than just anything to do with the Project. It had to concern the rights and obligations of the parties under the Agreement. Although a hotel was contemplated as part of the Project, it was not a required component. Further, express authorization to determine a business issue would have been necessary.