Drafting tip Archives - Arbitration Matters

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

October 24, 2023October 20, 2023

Alberta – Third party beneficiary of contract bound by arbitration clause – #784

In Husky Oil Operations Limited v Technip Stone & Webster Process Technology Inc, 2023 ABKB 545, the issue before the Court was whether a third party beneficiary of a contract was bound by the contract’s arbitration clause in a dispute concerning the contractual warranties. The Court answered the question in the affirmative. While the plaintiff was not a party to the contract containing the arbitration clause, it was given rights to enforce certain warranties. Since the plaintiff chose to enforce its third party rights under the contract, it was bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The plaintiff was required to arbitrate its warranty claims, which were time-barred, as the limitation period had expired. However, the plaintiff’s negligence claims were not arbitrable as they did not arise out of the contract and those claims, which were brought by way of action, were not affected by the expiry of the limitation period to arbitrate.

October 12, 2023October 10, 2023

Ontario – A pathological med-arb clause – #781

Stothers v Kazeks, 2023 ONSC 5021 is a perfect example of the confusion about the med-arb process that I covered in my last case note: Med-arb process was “fundamentally flawed” – #775. If you want to skip to the language of the pathological so-called med-arb clause without the factual background in this case, just scroll down to just above the Editor’s Notes section.

October 1, 2023October 1, 2023

Ontario – Arbitrator to decide whether non-signatories are bound to arbitrate – #776

In We Care Community Operating Ltd. v Bhardwaj, 2023 ONSC 4747, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration under a Co-Ownership Agreement that related to a development property in Toronto. The Court deferred to the arbitrator the question of whether certain corporate entities – which were not signatories to the Co-Ownership Agreement – were nonetheless bound by the arbitration agreement contained in it.

June 6, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Competing “jurisdiction” clauses result in application for stay being dismissed – #743

In RH20 North America Inc. et al v. Bergmann et al, 2023 ONSC 2378, the moving defendants brought both a motion under Rule 21 striking out certain of the plaintiff’s claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and an application for a stay for want of jurisdiction on the basis of arbitration clauses in their underlying contracts with the plaintiffs. They met with divided success. While granting relief on the Rule 21 motion, Justice Valente dismissed the stay application on a variety of grounds, including that there were competing arbitration and jurisdiction clauses and that there was an attornment to the court’s jurisdiction as a result of bringing the Rule 21 motion.

April 10, 2023April 4, 2023

BC – Court determines arbitrator jurisdiction, exercising exception to competence-competence – #726

In Isagenix International LLC v. Harris, 2023 BCCA 96, Justice Griffin, for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, upheld an order dismissing the Appellant’s application made pursuant to section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233 (the “ICCA”) for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. In particular, she rejected the Appellant’s argument that the chambers justice had misapplied the principle of competence-competence by deciding the question about whether the underlying negligence claim fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, rather than referring the jurisdictional matter to the arbitrator. Justice Griffin found that the chambers justice did not err in law because he came within one of the well-established exceptions to the competence-competence rule.

February 2, 2023February 9, 2023

Ontario – ‘Parochial’ perspective on expert determination rejected – #708

In KMH Cardiology Centres Incorporated v Lambardar Inc., 2022 ONSC 7139, Justice Myers referred a dispute for expert determination pursuant to the parties’ agreement. He concluded that the parties intended the dispute to be determined by an expert, and not arbitration, even though it required the expert to engage in the exercise of contractual interpretation and not simply a mathematical calculation.

January 16, 2023March 13, 2023

Liz’s 2022 Hot Topic: Treatment of arbitration agreements in 2022 – #703

My hot topic for 2022 is the treatment of arbitration agreements by the courts. Frequently, challenges to arbitral jurisdiction and appeals are brought on the basis of the scope and enforceability of an arbitration agreement. A review of a number of cases within the last year indicates a trend that a strongly, and often broadly drafted agreements are frequently the difference between a successful and unsuccessful court challenge. This case note will review a number of notable cases we have seen this past year.

December 30, 2022March 13, 2023

Lisa’s 2022 Hot Topic #1: Arbitrator resignation – the when, how, and what next? – #696

Although there is provision in most provincial domestic arbitration legislation and the Model Law for the resignation of the arbitrator, there is little guidance on when the arbitrator may do so and the potential consequences once that occurs. However, two cases released in 2022 are helpful in that they suggest: (1) potential limitations on the discretion of an arbitrator to resign, regardless of the rights contained in the legislation; and (2) how the parties many anticipate this issue and provide for it in their arbitration agreement if it is important, so as to minimize the inevitable disruption that arises when an arbitrator resigns.

December 6, 2022December 9, 2022

Ontario – Shareholders dispute stayed where 2 of 3 agreements had arbitration clauses – #690

In 12823543 Canada Ltd. v Mizrahi Commercial (The One) GP Inc., 2022 ONSC 6206, Justice Penny granted an application to stay the proceeding commenced before the Superior Court of Justice and referred the matter to the appropriate arbitral tribunal to decide its jurisdiction. He found that the moving parties had raised an arguable case as to the application of the relevant arbitration agreements to the dispute and that the principle of compétence-compétence therefore favoured directing the parties to address their arguments to the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction. Only two of the three agreements at issue contained an arbitration agreement and yet Justice Penny was swayed by the nature of the dispute, grounded in a broad oppression claim, and considered that the Applicant’s allegations raised issues that went straight to the ability of the shareholders to make decisions of fundamental significance to their joint project.