Domestic Archives - Page 5 of 27 - Arbitration Matters

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.

September 13, 2024September 9, 2024

Alberta – Statutory Framework of Arbitral Appeals Clarified – Leave or No Leave? – #862

In Sivitilli v PesoRama Inc, 2024 ABCA 249, a single justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal set out and clarified the statutory framework for appeals to the Court of Appeal arising from challenges to arbitrations made on the basis that: (1) the arbitration agreement is invalid (s. 47 of the Arbitration Act); or (2) that court intervention is needed to prevent unfair or unequal treatment of a party to an arbitration agreement (s. 6(c)). The appeal route to the Court of Appeal for challenges brought pursuant to s. 47 of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43, which includes allegations that the arbitration agreement is invalid, expressly requires leave of the Court of Appeal. The appeal route for challenges to arbitrations made pursuant to s. 6, such as allegations that court intervention is needed to prevent unfair or unequal treatment of a party, are not addressed in the Arbitration Act, and therefore decisions of the first instance court are subject to a general right of appeal under the Alberta Rules of Court. No permission is required to appeal a decision under s. 6.

September 9, 2024September 9, 2024

Québec – First consideration of test for stay application for annulment application – #860

In ADRAQ (CSD) Laurentides c. Hamelin, 2024 QCCS 2324, the Court dismissed a motion brought pursuant to section 648 CCP to stay an application for annulment of an award to give the arbitrator the opportunity to correct it to eliminate the grounds for annulment. This is the first case to consider section 648 CCP. The Court developed the list of factors to be considered on such a motion. It also ruled that it has broad discretion in deciding a motion for a stay under section 648. In light of the preceding, the Court ruled that the judge deciding the merits of the application for annulment should decide the stay motion. That judge would have a better understanding of the case to determine whether a stay is appropriate considering the allegations, including alleged bias against the arbitrator, which the Court found were serious, and the respondent’s denial of the very existence of any grounds for annulment, leaving no place at this stage, for the arbitrator to correct his award. Therefore, the Court dismissed the respondent’s demand to stay the application for annulment.

August 28, 2024September 3, 2024

Québec – Court finds separate arbitration agreement, despite arbitration clause in contract – #857

In Roxboro Excavation Inc. v. Delsan-AIM Environmental Services Inc., 2024 QCCS 2331 the Court declined to hear a dispute between the Applicant, Roxboro Excavation Inc. (“Roxboro”), and the Defendant, Les Services environnementales Delsan-A.I.M. Inc. (“Delsan”), on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. Even though the subject contract included an arbitration clause, the Court did not interpret the clause or otherwise consider whether that clause required the parties to arbitrate the disputes. The Court instead focussed its analysis and decision on a separate agreement the parties had negotiated to resolve their disputes by arbitration and not in court.

August 16, 2024August 12, 2024

B.C. – Questions of issue estoppel not always extricable questions of law – #855

In Magnum Management Inc. v Chilliwack Hangar Corp., 2024 BCCA 212 [Magnum Management], the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal an arbitration award. The applicant sought leave on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to apply, or misapplied, the legal principle of issue estoppel, had misapprehended another arbitrator’s reasons in a prior arbitration involving the same contractual clauses, and had not anchored the award in either party’s submissions. The Court found that the applicant had failed to identify an extricable question of law under s. 59(3) of British Columbia’s Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 [“Act”].

July 31, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Court won’t intervene in arbitration to order disclosure against a party – #851

In Medjuck v Medjuck, 2024 ONSC 2980,the Court dismissed an application for a de novo hearing to decide the matter of disclosure requests that were denied in part by the Arbitrator on several grounds, including that he did not have jurisdiction to grant some of the requests. The Court held that it did not have authority to intervene in the arbitration so as to hear and rule on the disclosure request de novo. It found that the request did not fall under any of grounds listed at section 6 (court intervention limited) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.

July 22, 2024July 25, 2024

B.C. – Insufficiency of Reasons Breached Due Process – #848

In Sound Contracting Ltd. v Campbell River (City), 2024 BCSC 933, the court allowed the set- aside challenge of an arbitral award and remitted the matter to the arbitrator on the basis that the arbitrator had failed in his duty under natural justice to provide adequate reasons. The arbitrator concluded that the arbitration was time-barred but did not explain why he had reached that conclusion. In so doing, the court treated the set-aside challenge as akin to an appeal, where insufficient reasons amount to an error of law. In so doing, the court applied principles in the civil (appeal) and administrative (judicial review) contexts to the set aside of an arbitral award. This stands in contrast to how this issue has been treated internationally, where the matter of whether insufficiency of reasons is a breach of procedural fairness is not well-settled.