Domestic Archives - Page 4 of 27 - Arbitration Matters

January 2, 2025December 16, 2024

Josh’s 2024 Hot Topic – Consensual arbitration appeal mechanisms – #884

This year, in a landmark decision, McLaren Automotive Incorporated c.9727272 Canada Inc, 2024 QCCS 3457, the Québec Superior Court rendered a first-ever ruling that considered the validity of an arbitration appeal mechanism whereby the parties’ arbitration agreement allowed the appeal of an award to a different arbitrator. As reported in Arbitration Matters case note no. 864 (“Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Mechanism”), the Court found that such a mechanism does not offend public order principles set out in art. 622(3) of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). Therefore, it found that Québec law does not prevent the parties from agreeing to an appeal mechanism in their arbitration agreement, even though it is not provided for in Québec arbitration law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

December 20, 2024December 13, 2024

Alberta – Arbitrator’s Resignation does not terminate arbitration – #882

In Belanger v Pokol, 2024 ABKB 646, the Court dismissed an application by a party to the dispute to “be released from arbitration.” The Applicant argued that the resignation of the arbitrator following allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias effectively terminated the arbitration. The Court found that since the arbitration agreement provided for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator in the event of the arbitrator’s resignation, the arbitration was not terminated, and the parties were bound to continue. He ordered the parties to attempt to agree on a new arbitrator, failing which either party could apply to the Court to have one appointed.

December 4, 2024December 3, 2024

Ontario – Court weighs in on standard of review post-Vavilov (and decides) – #879

In Burwell v. Wozniak, 2024 ONSC 1234, the Court grappled with the appropriate standard of review to apply to arbitral awards. The heart of the underlying dispute was whether the appellant Burwell’s promise of shares in his company was sufficient to establish an estoppel against him in favour of his former partner, Wozniak. This case is noteworthy because most cases since Vavilov have not weighed in on the issue and have simply said that, regardless of the standard of review, the appellant does not meet it.

December 2, 2024November 29, 2024

Ontario – Court Grants Extraordinary Remedy of Removing Arbitrator for Undue Delay – #878

In Maharajh v Mathura, 2024 ONSC 5737 (“Maharajh”), the Court granted an application to remove an Arbitrator for undue delay. The Arbitrator went silent for four months without explanation and then consented to the Applicant’s request that she resign. The Court was required to rule on the issue when the Respondent refused to consent. The delay was “undue” because the Applicant was prejudiced by it. This undermined the arbitration agreement. The parties could not cooperate, so their dispute returned to court.

November 20, 2024November 15, 2024

Ontario – Court endorses pre-hearing disclosure from non-parties to assist arbitration – #876

In Royal and Sunalliance Insurance v Ontario Provincial Police, 2024 ONSC 5505, the Court interpreted section 29(4) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991 (the “Act”) to allow courts to order non-party disclosure before an arbitration hearing. Section 29(4) states, “[o]n the application of a party or of the arbitral tribunal, the court may make orders and give directions with respect to the taking of evidence for an arbitration as if it were a court proceeding.” The Court’s order permits pre-hearing “discovery” of a non-party to the arbitration, as opposed to the taking of evidence at a hearing. The case sets out some considerations that may be relevant to future applications under this provision of the Act. This case highlights the need for parties seeking non-party disclosure in arbitration to carefully review the applicable legislation and frame requests for Court assistance accordingly.

November 8, 2024November 8, 2024

B.C. – Stay motion test and the “brick wall framework” – #874

In Wiederhold v Aspen Technology, Inc., 2024 BCSC 1731, the Court declined to grant a stay application under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 [Act], on the basis that the arbitration clause was unenforceable for lack of consideration, contrary to public policy, and unconscionable. It applied the “brick wall framework” described in Spark Event Rentals Ltd. v Google LLC, 2024 BCCA 148 at paragraphs 19 ss.

November 4, 2024November 8, 2024

Ontario – Common counsel insufficient for multiple arbitral appointments to raise bias – #872

In Dhaliwal v Richter International Ltd., 2024 ONSC 5103, the Court dismissed an application to remove an arbitrator for reasonable apprehension of bias. This was a multiple appointments case. The application arose from the non-disclosure of a concurrent mandate, in which counsel for the Respondents also was counsel in another arbitration before the same arbitrator. The Applicants’ challenge for bias was not brought in a timely manner, as required by s. 13(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17. In any event, overlapping counsel alone was not a sufficient ground for claiming bias, and no contextual circumstances necessitated disclosure of the concurrent mandate. Also, the arbitrator’s rejection of the Applicants’ evidence of what had been disclosed about the concurrent mandate did not give rise to actual bias.

October 25, 2024October 18, 2024

Québec – Award that violates municipal by-law does not offend public policy – #871

In Bélanger c Beauchamp, 2024 QCCS 3118, the Court homologated several awards rendered in the context of a dispute between two co-owners of an undivided property concerning the location and size of their parking spaces. The Defendant contested the homologation of one of the awards based on public policy grounds, alleging that the award violated a municipal by-law. The Court ruled that any violation of the municipal by-law that would result from the award did not amount to a public policy violation that justified refusing homologation, because it would not be a violation that offends the fundamental values underlying Québec public policy. The Court also decided that an award rejecting one of the parties’ applications for recusal of the arbitrator did not constitute an award within the meaning of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), and so could not be homologated. This latter issue is not addressed in this case note.

October 7, 2024October 4, 2024

B.C. – Stay of action fails where party first brought motion to strike – #866

Montaigne Group Ltd. v St. Alcuin College for the Liberal Arts Society, 2024 BCSC 1465 concerns the issue of whether the Court should grant a stay of domestic proceedings in favour of arbitration after the defendant who sought the stay, St. Alcuin, first brought a motion before the court to strike the claims. Because this involved seeking substantive relief from the Court, it held that the defendant had attorned to the Court’s jurisdiction and waived its right to arbitration and also taken steps that rendered the arbitration clause inoperative. Therefore, the stay of proceedings was denied under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2.

September 23, 2024September 20, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator jurisdiction – dispute arose from Consent Order after earlier arbitration – #863

In The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation, The Dr. Wolf Lebovic Charitable Foundation, the Estate of Joseph Lebovic and Wolf Lebovic v Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto and Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus, 2024 ONSC 4400, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s order that he had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute that arose after a Consent Order made in an earlier arbitration. The parties’ first dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in their agreement. They settled that dispute and the arbitrator issued a Consent Order that contained a term that referred, “any disputes regarding the matters referred to in this Order” back to him for resolution. A second arbitration did not proceed. The same arbitrator was appointed to decide the issues in dispute in a third arbitration. The respondents in the arbitration (“Lebovic”) argued that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction because the issues raised were grounded in the Consent Order and not in the agreement that contained the arbitration clause. The arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction, in part, because: (1) resolving this third dispute would necessarily involve factual consideration of the contract terms, and obligations and conduct of the parties under both the parties’ agreement and the Consent Order; and (2) the issues raised by Lebovic were all grounded in rights and obligations which were initiated by the terms of their agreement. Lebovic maintained their objection and applied to the Court under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17, “to decide the matter”. The focus of this case note is the arbitrator’s decision, because the application was decided on the basis of waiver.