Drafting tip Archives - Arbitration Matters

April 6, 2026April 10, 2026

B.C. – Narrow basis for refusing to stay an action reiterated – #942

In Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Wiederhold, 2025 BCCA 261 (“Aspen“) the Court reversed a lower court’s finding that an arbitration clause was void and inoperative. In concluding the motions judge erred, the Court confirmed the very limited grounds upon which a court can refuse to stay an action in favour of arbitration. It closes a door the lower court in Aspen had opened and corrects the lower court’s application of the Dell Computer and Uber frameworks.

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Northwest Territories – Peace River Analogized in Oppression-Driven Disclaimer of Arbitration – #938

In TSA CORPORATION et al v KPMG LLP, 2026 NWTSC 2, the Court approved a Receiver’s request to disclaim arbitration agreements between companies in receivership (the “LKDFN Companies”) and KPMG, which the LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had engaged to provide accounting services and tax advice. The Receiver had been appointed to facilitate the LKDFN Companies’ recovery from oppression at the hands of their former CEO. Relevant statutes, and the Receiver’s appointment order, authorized a broad range of potential remedies, expressly including the power to disclaim contracts with third parties. Reasoning by analogy to Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41, the Court approved the Receiver’s request because “not doing so would compromise the fair and orderly correction” of “a scenario of exploitation, unfairness, and the obliteration of autonomy.” The Receiver’s disclaimer rendered arbitration agreements between the LKDFN Companies and KPMG unenforceable under the Arbitration Act, SNWT 2022, c 14. As a result, the Court denied KPMG’s application to stay derivative actions brought against it.

The social context of this case was key. The LKDFN Companies’ former CEO had “knowingly breached his fiduciary duties to the LKDFN Companies, including failing to disclose his own interests, which were significant, and he caused them to enter into agreements, transactions, and governance structures which were unfair and prejudicial.” The LKDFN Companies had been organized to serve economic and other needs of the First Nation, infusing this case with the “special social context attendant to the exploitation of a vulnerable indigenous group.” This context situated the case in the process of truth and reconciliation with Canada’s First Nations, including the interpretive lens of federal and territorial legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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.