Domestic Archives - Page 14 of 26

October 25, 2022April 5, 2023

Ontario – Domestic arbitration statutes can supplement industry-specific arbitration schemes – #675

In Neuhaus Management Ltd v. Huang, 2022 ONSC 5548, the Ontario Divisional Court (Firestone RSJ, Stewart, and Akhtar JJ.) examined how Ontario’s domestic arbitration statute can be incorporated into and be read together with an industry-specific statutory arbitration scheme, the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O.1990, c.O.31 (the “Ontario New Home Warranties Act”).

October 25, 2022October 25, 2022

Ontario – Limitations defence not a matter of arbitral jurisdiction – #674

In Cruickshank Construction Ltd. v The Corporation of the City of Kingston, 2022 ONSC 5704, Justice Myers allowed an application to appoint an arbitrator, providing his views on the method for that appointment. He also dismissed the Respondent’s cross-application for a declaration that the notice of arbitration was limitation-barred and that the Applicant had not complied with preconditions to arbitration in the parties’ agreement. Justice Myers held that there was no basis in the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 (“Arbitration Act”) to permit the court to grant the cross-application and the grounds raised were not matters of arbitral jurisdiction.

October 24, 2022January 10, 2023

Quebec – The broad powers of an arbitrator as “amiable composer” – #673

In Investissements immobiliers MB inc. c. SMP Direct inc., 2022 QCCS 3315, Justice Godbout affirmed the broad jurisdiction that an arbitrator has to grant remedies in oppression claims, especially when empowered as an ‘amiable composer’. An ‘amiable composer’ may make a binding decision based on equity (rather than law) and without procedural formalities. It is a role that has its roots in civil law (“amiable compositeur”).

October 20, 2022October 20, 2022

Ontario – Does an appeal of a costs award require leave? – #672

In Schickedanz v Wagema Holdings Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5315, Justice Ramsay dismissed the motion by Wagema Holdings Ltd (Respondent on appeal) to quash Appellant Schickedanz’s appeal of a costs award. Wagema argued that leave was required under s. 133(b) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”) and so the appeal was also out of time. Justice Ramsay was not persuaded that Wagema would prevail when the issue was determined by the appeal judge. First, the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a broad appeal process, without a leave requirement for costs appeals. Second, there is nothing in s. 45 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 that requires leave to appeal a costs award or imports the leave requirement set out in the general costs appeal provision in s. 113(b) of the CJA. Third, the parties could contract out of the appeal provisions in s. 45 of the Arbitration Act pursuant to s. 3. Imposing a leave requirement to appeal a costs award would amount to judicial interference with the parties’ right to contract, which was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19. Ultimately, it would be up to the judge hearing the appeal to decide whether leave was required and, if so, whether the appeal was out of time and whether the appeal had merit.

October 13, 2022October 17, 2022

Québec – Solidary liability allegation no bar to referral to arbitration for one defendant – #671

In Nantel v Gonzalez (not reported), Justice Buchholz stayed an action as against one defendant of a group and referred its dispute with the Plaintiffs to arbitration, even though the Plaintiffs alleged solidary (joint) liability as against all Defendants.

October 12, 2022October 13, 2022

B.C. – Leave to appeal granted on question of law of public importance – #670

In The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture v. Malcolm Drilling Company Inc., 2022 BCCA 319, the Applicants (The Graham-Aecon Joint Venture and related entities) sought leave to appeal an arbitral award where the underlying dispute turned on the proper interpretation of section 8(d) of the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012 c. 13. That provision states that a claim is “discovered” “on the first day on which the person “knew or reasonably ought to have known…that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damages, a court proceeding would have been an appropriate means to see to remedy the injury or loss”. Based on his interpretation of section 8(d), the Arbitrator had found that the claim was not time-barred. On application for leave to appeal, even though the Arbitrator’s reasons were “careful and thorough” Justice Voith decided to exercise his discretion to grant leave. He found the question of the proper interpretation of section 8(d) met the requirements of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2 for leave as it was a question of law that ‘cannot be dismissed through a preliminary examination’ and was of public or general importance as it had received little previous judicial attention.

October 10, 2022October 7, 2022

Québec –Property Appraisal Process not Contrary to Public Order– #668

In Hypertech Real Estate Inc. v. Equinix Canada Ltd, 2022 QCCS 3368, Justice Corriveau dismissed an application to annul an arbitral award on the basis that a property appraisal process was “contrary to public order” pursuant to Article 646 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). Under the terms of an option to purchase property (the “Property”), Hypertech Real Estate Inc. (“Hypertech”) and Equinix Canada Ltd. (“Equinix”) submitted appraisal valuations. Purchaser Equinix’s appraisal was some $60,000,000 lower than seller Hypertec’s. In arbitration, Hypertec maintained that Equinix’s appraisal was so flawed it should be excluded from consideration. The arbitral tribunal reviewed the appraisal in “Phase I” of the arbitration and rendered an award finding that the appraisal contained no fundamental flaws. Hypertec unsuccessfully argued before Justice Corriveau that the arbitral tribunal erred in two respects: (1) in its interpretation and application of rules of public order; and (2) that the award reasons were insufficient, which was contrary to public order.

October 6, 2022October 13, 2022

Ontario – No oral hearing required even if one party requests it – #667

Optiva Inc. v Tbaytel, 2022 ONCA 646, raises two issues of interest to arbitration law. First, the Appellant (Optiva) made a jurisdictional objection to the arbitrator’s ruling allowing the Respondent (Tbaytel) to bring a motion for summary judgment. The arbitrator then issued a procedural order in which he ruled that he had jurisdiction. After hearing the motion, the arbitrator issued a partial award on the merits, which was in favour of Tbaytel. Optiva applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and to set aside the partial award, both pursuant to s.17 (rulings and objections re jurisdiction) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). However, the application judge found that Optiva had failed to bring its application on time and dismissed it. Pursuant to s. 17(8), it was required to do so within 30 days of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ruling, not after the issuance of the partial award on the merits. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge and dismissed Optiva’s appeal, but for different reasons. The application judge erred in finding that Optiva was out of time to ask the Court to “decide the matter” because the preliminary ruling was not jurisdictional. Relying upon Inforica Inc. v. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., 2009 ONCA 642, the ruling that the matter could proceed by summary judgment was procedural, not a ruling on the arbitrator’s “own jurisdiction”; therefore, s. 17 was not engaged. However, the appeal was dismissed because the arbitrator was entitled to decide matters of procedure, both under the Act and under the parties’ arbitration agreement, and did so. Second, the Court of Appeal held that s. 26(1) of the Act does not require an oral evidentiary hearing, even if one party requests it.

September 29, 2022September 29, 2022

Ontario – No appeal lies from preliminary jurisdictional decision – #666

In Iris Technologies Inc. v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 634, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed a motion for leave to appeal from the lower court’s decision in which it was asked to “decide the matter” of arbitral jurisdiction under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. The Court of Appeal confirmed its earlier decision, United Mexican States v. Burr, 2021 ONCA 64, made under the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017. The Court also made it clear that no appeal lies from lower court decisions which “decide the matter” of arbitral jurisdiction when the question comes before the court as a preliminary issue before the final award is rendered.

September 28, 2022April 20, 2023

Alberta – Master’s stay decision appealable despite no appeal under Arbitration Act – #665

In Agrium v Orbis Engineering Field Services, 2022 ABCA 266, the majority of a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “Court of Appeal”) dismissed an appeal to overturn a decision staying the action in favour of arbitration. The Appellant, Agrium, Inc. (“Agrium”), commenced an action against the Respondents, Orbis Engineering Field Services Ltd., Elliott Turbomachinery Canada Inc., and Elliott Company (together, the “Respondents”), in relation to a dispute arising out of the parties’ services contract that included a mandatory arbitration agreement. The Respondents defended the claim, including on the ground that the arbitration agreement barred the action pursuant to s 7 of Alberta’s Arbitration Act (the “Act”). The Respondents’ initial application to stay the action was dismissed by Master Prowse on the grounds of waiver and attornment. The Respondents then appealed to a Justice of Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench. Before Justice Dilts, Agrium relied upon s 7(6) of the Act, which states that “[t]here is no appeal from the court’s decision under this section”. Agrium argued that thisprohibited the appeal. Justice Dilts dismissed this argument and allowed the Respondents’ appeal on the grounds that: (1) an appeal was permitted notwithstanding s. 7(6); and (2) the Respondents’ conduct did not amount to a waiver of their right to arbitrate. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld Justice Dilts’ decision based on a similar analysis. Of note, Justice Wakeling wrote a 44-page dissenting opinion, which includes 140 paragraphs and 152 footnotes, as compared with the 34- paragraph majority decision (!).