Drafting tip Archives - 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, 2025August 1, 2025

Ontario – Interpretation of Standard Form Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses Still Vexing – #914

In J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. v. Greater Essex County District School Board, 2025 ONCA 378 (the “Decision”), the Court provides important guidance on the interpretation of multi-tier dispute resolution clauses.

History of the Dispute – J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd. (“Thomson”) is an architecture firm which provided services to the Greater Essex County District School Board (the “Board”) for nearly 50 years. The contracts in question contained a standard form Ontario Association of Architects multi-tier dispute resolution clause (as it existed at the time of contract).

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.

February 24, 2025February 24, 2025

Ontario – Natural justice does not require second opportunity to make submissions – #897

In Edenrock Holdings Inc. v. Moscone, 2025 ONSC 32, the Court refused to set aside an arbitral award, or grant leave to appeal, with respect to a claimed breach of natural justice, the supposed improper re-opening of earlier decisions, or the alleged apprehension bias of the Arbitrator who issued the Award. The Court found that there was no denial of natural justice when the Arbitrator ruled on a matter in respect of which the Applicants did not make submissions because they argued that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction. They argued they should have been given a separate opportunity after the Arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction.

February 7, 2025February 10, 2025

Alberta – Court rejects Ontario approach to stays of enforcement – #892

In Inter Pipeline Ltd v Teine Energy Ltd, 2024 ABKB 740 (“Inter Pipeline”), the Court set out the three-part test a party must meet to obtain a stay of enforcement of a domestic arbitration award in Alberta, rejecting as “not principled” the two-part test that applies in Ontario. The Court also addressed the argument that refusing a sealing order in these circumstances would put a chill on challenges to arbitral awards.

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.

September 11, 2024September 20, 2024

Federal – Arbitrations may be private but may NOT be confidential – #861

In SOS Marine Inc. v. M/V Gentle Seas (Ship), 2024 FC 1042 (CanLII), (“SOS Marine“) the Court rejected arguments that information disclosed in arbitral proceedings should be kept confidential in an unrelated court proceeding involving third parties.

June 17, 2024June 17, 2024

Nunavut – No lawyer disqualification for near-client relationship in prior arbitration – #841

In The Government of Nunavut v. Stantec Architecture Ltd., 2024 NUCJ 11, the Court dismissed the application of Defendant Stantec Architecture Ltd. (“Stantec”) to disqualify the lawyers of the Plaintiff, Government of Nunavut (“Nunavut”), from acting in the litigation. The dispute arose from the construction of an arena (“Project”). Stantec, the architect for the Project, argued that the Nunavut’s lawyers were in a conflict of interest because of a confidential cooperation agreement in which Nunavut’s counsel had assisted Stantec in a previous arbitration in which Stantec and the construction company hired for the Project were parties. That construction company was not a party to this action. Stantec alleged a “near-client” relationship with Nunavut’s lawyers arising from this cooperation agreement which disqualified them from acting for Nunavut in this litigation. The Court dismissed the application because the cooperation agreement specifically excluded the creation of a solicitor-client relationship between Stantec and Nunavut’s lawyers and expressly reserved the parties’ rights and recourses against each other concerning the Project.

May 24, 2024May 24, 2024

Ontario – Court can hear set aside despite NY forum selection clause – #837

In Tehama Group Inc v Pythian Services Inc, 2024 ONSC 1819, the Court declined to stay an application to set aside an arbitration award. The stay application was based on a forum selection clause in favour of the courts of New York. In denying the stay, the Ontario court applied an exception in that forum selection clause regarding certain types of disputes under the parties’ agreement that were to be referred to arbitration. The key issue in the case concerned establishing the “place” of the arbitration, which had not been expressly set out by the parties or determined by the arbitrator. Applying the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 (“ICAA”) and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law“) the Court determined that Toronto, Ontario, was the place of arbitration and that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was therefore the only competent forum to decide the set-aside application.

March 11, 2024March 8, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s stand-alone jurisdiction decision a preliminary “ruling” open to de novo review – #820

In Clost v Rennie, 2023 ONSC 6998, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement was invalid after a de novo hearing to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). The Applicant (also referred to in the decision and herein as “Norm”) contended that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was contained in a lease agreement which he alleged was fraudulent because his signature was forged. The parties first submitted the jurisdictional issue to a sole arbitrator, who found the arbitration agreement to be valid. The Court accepted that a de novo hearing under s. 17(8) of the Act was required, finding that the Arbitrator had rendered a “ruling” on a preliminary question of jurisdiction rather than an “award”, even though the sole question he was asked to determine was jurisdiction. There was an extensive evidentiary record before the arbitrator relative to the jurisdictional issue. This raised for debate the difference between an “award” and a “ruling” on a preliminary question which can be decided by the Court on a hearing de novo. The Court completed its own review of the extensive evidentiary record and ultimately concluded that the lease (and therefore the arbitration agreement) was fraudulent and invalid and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction