Domestic Archives - Page 16 of 27

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 (!).

September 27, 2022September 26, 2022

Québec – Interests of justice require closely linked disputes to be arbitrated – #664

In Tessier v 2428-8516 Québec inc., 2002 QCCS 3159, Justice Dufresne granted an application for a declinatory exception in respect of an originating application, and referred two disputes involving ownership of two closely connected companies to arbitration where the shareholders of only one of the two companies involved in the disputes were subject to an arbitration agreement. Justice Dufresne found that the disputes were linked. He relied upon the interests of justice and the principle of proportionality and found that [informal translation]“rather than depriving the shareholders of the first [company] of the effects of the arbitration clause, the shareholders of the second [company] should be ordered to be subject to it.”

September 26, 2022September 26, 2022

Alberta – Court reviews preliminary jurisdictional award for correctness de novo – #663

In Ong v Fedoruk, 2022 ABQB 557, Justice Bourque confirmed that under subsection 17(9) of the Alberta Arbitration Act(“the Act“), the court reviews preliminary jurisdictional awards in domestic arbitrations for correctness on a de novo basis. In doing so, Ong aligned the standard of review and procedure in Alberta with the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in The Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604 (“Luxtona”), a case decided under the comparable provision of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (“ICAA”), which implements the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). However, it diverged from Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd. v Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, 2005 ABQB 975 (“Ace Bermuda”), an international case which applied a review standard of “reasonableness, deference & respect” under Alberta’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c I-5, which also implements the Model Law. That case as a precedent may now be in doubt, considering the trend in Canadian and other Model Law jurisdictions in favor of non-deferential review of preliminary jurisdictional decisions of arbitral tribunals.

September 23, 2022April 13, 2023

B.C. – Material misapprehension of evidence is an extricable error of law – #662

In Escape 101 Ventures Inc. v March of Dimes Canada, 2022 BCCA 294, Justice Voith (for the Court) allowed an appeal of a commercial arbitral award on two grounds of significance: (1) the arbitrator demonstrated a material misapprehension of evidence going to the core of the outcome – this constituted an extricable error of law subject to appeal; and (2) an appeal is allowed with respect to “any question of law arising out of an arbitral award”, but this is not limited to errors arising from the formal award of the arbitrator. Here, the error was patent from the record, but was not apparent in the arbitrator’s reasons. The Court remitted the issue back to the arbitrator for reconsideration rather than substitute its own decision because there was no record of the proceedings, so it lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation to do so. (This was also the first appeal under the new B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2.)

September 13, 2022September 9, 2022

Alberta – Successful enforcement of right to arbitrate attracts triple “tariff” costs – #659

In Barrel Oil Corp v. Cenovus Energy Inc., 2022 ABQB 488, Justice M.H. Hollins granted a Respondent who successfully defended an application to stay an arbitration the Respondent had commenced, triple “tariff” costs, equating to just over 40% of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs. The Court rejected the Respondent’s plea of full indemnity costs, finding they were inappropriate in this case.

September 12, 2022September 9, 2022

Québec – Annulment – No review of the merits and no reason to appeal – #658

Balabanyan v. Paradis, 2022 QCCA 877 is, hopefully, the last stage of this arbitration saga, which has come before the Court many times before. In a previous Case Note, Québec – Annulment – No review of the merits, even if award wrong #603, I reviewed how the Court dismissed each and every reason the Appellant raised against the arbitral award made against him. In her decision, Québec Superior Court Justice Harvie reaffirmed that courts have no jurisdiction to revisit the merits of an arbitral award or the arbitrator’s reasons and assessment of the evidence when a party is seeking homologation or annulment of an arbitral award. She also confirmed the strict scope of analysis of homologation/annulment grounds according to sections 645 and 646 CCP. In an ultimate attempt to annul the award made against him, the Appellant sought leave to appeal Justice Harvie’s decision. Firstly, the Court of Appeal took notice of Justice Harvie’s assessment that the Appellant acted in bad faith in the conduct of his proceedings: by seeking to “wear the opponent out of steam by a maze of procedures and ill-founded arguments”. This increased Appellant’s burden significantly and even more considering the fact that the Appellant’s application was out of time. The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave application because the Plaintiff did not demonstrate any reason to justify his demand.

August 29, 2022August 29, 2022

Newfoundland and Labrador – Objections to litigation to be raised early (even if tentative) – #655

In 55668 Newfoundland and Labrador Limited v. Sullivan, 2022, NLSC 127, a franchisor-franchisee dispute arose between the parties. The Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause, however, the Plaintiffs proceeded by way of Statement of Claim. The Defendants did not take the position that the dispute was to be referred to arbitration in their original pleading, relying upon the Statement of Claim, which referred to conduct that occurred after the Franchise Agreement had been terminated. Later, the Plaintiffs corrected their pleading to provide that the impugned conduct occurred pre-termination. The parties disputed whether the arbitration clause terminated with the termination of the Franchise Agreement, and also whether the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. At trial, the Defendants argued that they had been prejudiced by the pleading amendment, which they asserted clearly gave them the right to arbitration. Justice Knickle held that, assuming the dispute fell within the terms of the arbitration clause, arbitration may have been the available option. However, the Defendants knew from the beginning of the litigation that the facts that were relevant to the dispute covered the period both before and after the termination; their failure to plead their right to arbitration in their Statement of Defence meant that they were out of time to object.

August 29, 2022August 29, 2022

Ontario – Arbitrator to determine jurisdiction/validity of arbitration clause in employment dispute – #654

In Irwin v. Protiviti, 2022 ONCA 533, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that, unless the question is one of pure law or is a question of mixed fact and law requiring only a superficial review of the evidence, questions about the jurisdiction of an arbitrator are to be arbitrated. This includes whether an arbitration clause in an arbitration contract is void for unconscionability, or for inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S. O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) or the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 (“the Code”).