Domestic Archives - Page 9 of 26 - Arbitration Matters

August 17, 2023August 11, 2023

Québec – No evidence permitted in support of annulment application – #765

In Glen Eagle Resources Inc. v. Gem Yield Bahamas Ltd, 2023 QCCA 686, the Court of Appeal dismissed Appellant’s application for leave to appeal the Superior Court’s decision dismissing Appellant’s request to adduce evidence in support of its application for annulment of an arbitral award. The lower court dismissed Appellant’s request to have a witness testify in support of its argument that the contract containing the arbitration clause was void. Appellant argued that the nullity of the contract would lead to the conclusion that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction. Respondent, which applied for homologation of the award, argued that the lower court had no jurisdiction to hear evidence on the merits of the arbitration on an application to annul the award and that, in any event, the arbitration clause was a separate contract, not affected by the nullity of the contract in which it was included. Following the Superior Court’s decision, the hearing before it was suspended until the Court of Appeal’s decision on the matter.

August 14, 2023August 18, 2023

Alberta – Misapplication of separability principle in contract dispute – #762

Gutama Estate v Vital Property Services Inc., 2023 ABKB 436, is NOT an arbitration case and the contract at issue contained no arbitration clause. But bear with me! The case involved the alleged repudiation/termination of a shareholders agreement and the consequences to the rights and obligations of the parties as a result. The question: if the contract was repudiated/terminated, were all the parties’ rights unwound? The Court quoted from Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. (uniset.ca), the leading U.K. decision that established the common law principle of separability of the arbitration clause. The Court described Heyman v Darwins as a case that addresses the operation of an arbitration clause where the contract has come to an end: in circumstances in which the contract-terminating event did not go to the very existence of the contract, “it did not matter how the contract came to be terminated: the contract (including its arbitration clause) had existed, and the arbitration clause continued to operate….” The Court then extrapolated that concept and applied it more broadly: “[i]n other words, pre-existing and engaged contractual rights continued to operate despite the later termination (by whatever means) of the contract”. Applying that reasoning to this case where the shareholders agreement was alleged to have been repudiated or terminated by its own terms, the Court said that any such termination did not, “eclipse the agreement completely ie render it meaningless for all purposes and at all times… [i]nstead, crystalized rights and obligations would continue.” In other words, “the parties would be discharged from future obligations, but remain bound by rights and obligations that have accrued through partial performance”. Thus the Court imported part of a uniquely arbitration law principle with a specific public policy purpose, separability, into general contract law.

August 1, 2023August 1, 2023

Ontario – Courts will also enforce agreements in favour of court proceedings – #758

In Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. v BevCanna Operating Corp., 2023 ONSC 4015, the Court dismissed an application by Defendant BevCanna Operating Corp (“BevCanna”) for a permanent stay of the action or alternatively, a permanent stay of any claims caught by the arbitration clause in the agreement between BevCanna and the Plaintiff, Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. (“Eurofins”). The Court found that Eurofins’s claim sought recovery of unpaid fees under the parties’ contract, even though it also included claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Claims for unpaid fees fell within an exception to the mandatory arbitration clause. It permitted (but did not require) claims for unpaid fees to be brought in the courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered whether the essential character, or pith and substance of the dispute, was covered by the arbitration clause. This focus ensures that parties are held to their agreement and avoids attempts by clever counsel to plead their way around an arbitration clause.

July 17, 2023July 17, 2023

Alberta – Restrictive interpretation of exceptions to stay applications – #754

In 2329716 Alberta Ltd. v Jagroop Randhawa, 2023 ABKB 297, the Court of King’s Bench stayed interim and injunctive relief applications pending a resolution of the parties’ dispute in arbitration. The Court found that the Respondent’s application for interim and injunctive relief related to arbitrable matters covered by the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, and that the summary judgment exception in ss. 7(2)(e) of the Alberta Arbitration Act did not apply because: (a) there had been no application for summary judgement; and (b) the Applicant did not attorn to the Court’s jurisdiction by seeking declaratory orders (in a previous proceeding that had been dismissed on procedural grounds) and injunctive relief (at the stay application hearing).

July 7, 2023July 10, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide derivative action without court authorization – #753

In Tidan inc. c. Trria Design inc., 2023 QCCS 1746, the Superior Court of Québec dismissed an application by the Respondent to an arbitration, Tidan inc., under article 632 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure, C-25.01 (CCP) to find that the arbitrator had erred in concluding that he had jurisdiction to hear all the claims submitted to arbitration by the Claimant, Trria Design inc. The Respondent argued that some of the claims were unarbitrable as they were derivative claims, which must be authorized by the Superior Court pursuant to Article 445 of the Québec Business Corporations Act (BCA). The Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement was broadly drafted and gave the arbitrator the jurisdiction over, “any dispute which might arise as to the interpretation or the application of this agreement”, which included oppression remedy and derivative claims.

July 5, 2023June 29, 2023

Manitoba – Limited record magnified difficulty of appeal of award – #751

In Benkie v. Nichol, 2023 MBKB 82, the Court dismissed an appeal of an arbitral award rendered in a family law dispute. The appeal record contained significant “gaps,” because evidence that was received before the arbitrator, and was considered by her in arriving at her award, was not before the appeal court. This important evidence included a transcript of the cross-examinations of witnesses at the hearing. There was no recording made of the hearing, which was what the parties agreed to as the process. This lack of information was “highly consequential to the disposition of the appeal’. The Court did not accept the wife’s argument that the Arbitrator erred in making a finding that was not supported by the evidence because the record did not contain all the evidence. The issues this case raises is relevant to commercial arbitration

July 4, 2023July 4, 2023

Ontario – Arbitration procedurally unfair – arbitrator excluded material evidence despite no objection – #750

In Mattamy (Downsview) Limited v KSV Restructuring Inc. (Urbancorp), 2023 ONSC 3013, Justice Kimmel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) set aside an arbitral award for violating procedural fairness. She found the Arbitrator acted unfairly in declining to admit relevant evidence on a new issue he himself raised in the arbitration. This decision reminds us that an arbitral tribunal’s procedural discretion, though vast and powerful, is not absolute.

June 20, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – No re-litigation when issues have already been fully arbitrated – #747

In Doria v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Canada inc., 2023 ONCA 321, the Court dismissed the appeal of a decision striking Appellant’s Statement of Claim on the ground that it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that had already been fully arbitrated. The Court of Appeal confirmed Justice Koehnen’s decision, even though the Statement of Claim sought damages from third parties to the arbitration. Reviewing the application of section 139 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this section does not give the broad right to sue jointly liable parties separately. That provision states that where persons are jointly and severally liable in respect of the same cause of action, a judgment or release of one of them does not preclude judgment against any other in the same or a separate proceeding. In this case, the provision did not apply. The Appellant’s claim was fully heard, and the Appellant was compensated through the arbitration process and award. Section 139 does now allow for the re-litigation of issues against third parties because the claimant is not satisfied with the decision, whether the decision arose from arbitration or from a court.

June 19, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Appeal allowed where arbitration agreement “invalid”; Arbitration Act not engaged – #746

In Goberdhan v Knights of Columbus, 2023 ONCA 327 , the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an order dismissing the Defendant’s/Appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. The motion judge found that the contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid for lack of consideration. He therefore refused the stay pursuant to s. 7(2)2 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 SO 1991, c 17. The Plaintiff/Respondent argued that no appeal was permitted under s. 7(6), which prohibits an appeal of a stay decision. The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that because the contracts and the arbitration clauses were invalid, the Arbitration Act,1991, was not engaged and there was no prohibition on appeal. The appeal was dismissed on its merits.

June 8, 2023August 8, 2023

Alberta – “Participating in” not same as “taking a step in” an arbitration – #745

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v NOVA Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABKB 215, Justice Wooley dismissed an application by Dow Chemical Canada ULC (“Dow”) for an order declaring the invalidity of the arbitration pursuant to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act to enjoin an arbitration between the parties. That provision requires that the party seeking the order has “not participated in the arbitration.” The Court found that Dow did participate in the arbitration and the case provides a useful framework for what it means to “participate” in an arbitration.