Domestic Archives - Page 2 of 27 - Arbitration Matters

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Québec – Arbitration clause in contract of adhesion abusive and null – #916

In Hydro-Québec v. Terrassement St-Louis inc., 2025 QCCA 900, the Court dismissed the demand of Appellant Hydro-Québec’s (“Hydro-Québec”) to refer the file to arbitration. Although the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement, the Court confirmed the first instance judge’s conclusion that the arbitration agreement was included in a contract of adhesion and that the arbitration agreement itself was abusive; because of the small amount in dispute, the three-arbitrator panel prescribed by the arbitration agreement resulted in a denial of justice for the Respondent. Therefore, the arbitration agreement was declared null under section 1437 C.C.Q. According to the Court’s reasoning, the arbitration agreement should have been flexible to take into consideration smaller amount disputes by having the option of a sole arbitrator and/or expedited arbitration rules.

July 31, 2025September 16, 2025

Ontario – Mid-arbitration switch to written hearing/refusing to consider submissions procedurally unfair – #915

In Spinney v. Fowlie, 2025 ONSC 2632, the Court set aside an award for want of procedural fairness. The Court found the applicants were denied fair and equal treatment when the Arbitrator decided, partway through a hearing, to switch from an oral to written hearing format and refused to consider the applicants’ written closing submissions. This case should serve as a reminder that even difficult parties are entitled to procedural fairness.

July 31, 2025July 31, 2025

Alberta – No costs to arbitrator sued for alleged bias – #913

Uhuegbulem v Balbi 2025 ABKB 318 is a factually complex dispute in which the plaintiff brought multiple proceedings before the court, and also before the arbitrator, to have the arbitrator removed for reasonable apprehension of bias based upon serious allegations of misconduct. When both those proceedings were not successful, plaintiff brought a separate action against the arbitrator. The defendant arbitrator brought an application in that action in which he argued that the action should be dismissed because (among other things): (1) the arbitrator was protected by arbitral immunity; and (2) the multiplicity of proceedings brought by the plaintiff was an abuse of process. The court could find no precedent for a separate proceeding brought against an arbitrator to have them removed for alleged reasonable apprehension of bias. Ultimately, the arbitrator resigned and the action and application became moot. The parties did not agree on costs and this decision reviews the relevant principles applied by the court to determine costs in this novel proceeding where the arbitrator actively responded to a bias application against him.

July 3, 2025July 4, 2025

Alberta – Court enforces med/arb consent award over bias objection – #910

In Heine v Worsfold, 2025 ABKB 307, the court enforced a consent award rendered in a family dispute over objections that the arbitrator – who had also mediated the parties’ settlement – had demonstrated bias against the Applicant in the mediation. While the case raised a plethora of other issues, at the core were allegations about the mediator/arbitrator’s conduct in the mediation process.

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Ontario – Technical requirements for stay are precondition to competence-competence principle – #909

In Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 2058, the court granted the applicant leave to bring derivative actions, rather than refusing leave based on the respondents’ argument that leave should be denied because of an arbitration agreement contained in a shareholders agreement. In Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized four technical requirements for a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, one of which is that the party applying for a stay of the court proceedings has not taken a step in the proceeding. Rather than bringing a motion to stay the applicant’s leave request under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, the respondents participated in the litigation and only raised arguments about an arbitration agreement in their factum responding to the applicants’ leave application. The court applied Peace River, which would have applied had the respondents brought a stay motion, and found that the respondents did not satisfy the technical requirements for a stay, having taken a step in the court proceeding. Because those requirements are a precondition to a stay, the court did not engage with the respondents’ arguments related to the competence-competence principle, and refused to dismiss the application for leave to bring derivative actions on the basis that the court proceeding should proceed by way of arbitration.

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

Nunavut – Court grants stay on grounds that “may arbitrate” clause is mandatory – #907

In Nuqsana Inc. v. Tangmaarvik Inland Camp Services Inc. et. al., 2025 NUCJ 13, the Court granted a stay in favour of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement provided for mandatory arbitration once either party elected to pursue a dispute by arbitration. The Court interpreted the arbitration clause and found that after mandatory “private amicable discussion and negotiation…”, the language “then any of the Parties may refer the Dispute to Arbitration” required arbitration if one party invoked the clause. The stay provision in Nunavet’s arbitration legislation is significantly different than others among common law provinces.

May 9, 2025May 12, 2025

Québec – Court declines to set aside on grounds of infra petita. – #906

In EDT GCV Civil c Société de transport de Montréal, 2025 QCCS 256,the Court dismissed an application to set aside a domestic arbitral award based, among other grounds, on a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Plaintiff, EDT GCV Civil (“EDT”), contended, among other things, that the arbitral tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction over certain claims and that this constituted jurisdictional error based on the doctrine of infra petita described especially in international commercial arbitration. In its judgment, the Court regrettably declined to comment on whether this doctrine may apply under Québec law as a ground to set aside a domestic arbitral award.

May 9, 2025May 9, 2025

Québec – Clarification on territorial jurisdiction versus arbitral seat under C.C.P. – #904

In BE Franchise inc. v. 9415-1511 Québec inc., 2024 QCCA 1498, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. It confirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the court’s territorial jurisdiction was the Respondent’s domicile, unless the parties agree otherwise, according to the general territorial jurisdiction’s rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 41 to 48 C.C.P.) The Court also confirmed that the general territorial jurisdiction rules apply to arbitrations because of the absence of a district designation by the Parties and of the absence an agreement between the Parties or an arbitration rule that would give the arbitrator the jurisdiction to fix the place of arbitration and therefore the Court competent district. The Court also ruled that in Québec, the place where the arbitration award is made cannot be deemed to be the place of arbitration because of the language used in article 642 C.C.P., which is different from the language used in article 31(3) of the Model Law. Therefore, on this issue, Quebec law is different from the Model Law. In the present case, the Court of Appeal ruled that no facts showed that the place of arbitration was the same as the place where the award was rendered.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Ontario – “No appeal” means “no appeal” (and other stuff) – #903

In Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, et al v. Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto, et al, 2024 ONCA 933,(“Lebovic“) the Court confirmed its prior ruling in Iris Technologies Inc. v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 634 (“Iris”). In both cases the arbitrator ruled, as a preliminary question, they had jurisdiction to decide the matter before them. In both cases one of the parties unsuccessfully sought a review of that ruling pursuant to s. 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. In both cases that party attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. And in both cases the motion to appeal was quashed with the Court of Appeal holding that s. 17(9) clearly prohibits any appeal from such a review.

April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Alberta – Multiplicity of Proceedings No Basis for Stay of Arbitration – #901

In Sivitilli v PesoRama Inc., 2025 ABCA 56, the Court clarified that the grounds for staying an arbitration are exhaustively set out in Section 7(2) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, which does not provide for a stay in the event of a multiplicity of proceedings. Section 6(c) of the Arbitration Act does not provide any further discretion to stay an arbitration. This decision is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19.