Enforcement/Homologation Archives

November 18, 2024November 22, 2024

Ontario – Application to enforce award against non-party to arbitration stayed – #875

In Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. v Webuild S.P.A, 2024 ONSC 4491 the Court considered whether to grant an application to enforce an arbitral award against a non-party to the arbitration. The non-party had purchased assets of the unsuccessful party to the arbitration as part of a restructuring proceeding in Italy. The successful party to the arbitration and the non-party disagreed on whether the asset purchase included the transfer of the unsuccessful party’s obligations under the award to the non-party. The Court stayed the enforcement application pending a determination of that threshold issue by the Italian courts.

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.

August 12, 2024August 9, 2024

Ontario – Partial Summary Judgment Test Applied on Recognition of Foreign Award Motion – #853

In Shanghai Investment Co. Ltd. V. Lu et al., 2024 ONSC 2762 the Chambers Judge concluded that to grant a motion asking that a foreign award be “domesticated” (that is, recognized and made enforceable as a judgment of the Ontario Court), the motion must also meet the additional requirements for partial summary judgment. In this case, the recognition of the foreign award was pleaded as a threshold issue and formed part of a larger enforcement action. As a result, if the motion for recognition were granted, it would bifurcate the action. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal in cases like Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783 (“Butera”) has held that partial summary judgment should rarely be granted as it usually not efficient nor cost effective, the Chambers Judge determined that it was appropriate in this case. Among other factors she noted was that the recognition portion of the action was distinct from the rest and there was no risk of inconsistent findings.

July 2, 2024July 2, 2024

Alberta – Arbitrator not functus for issuing consent award after party denied settlement – #844

In Caroll v Caroll, 2024 ABKB 227, the Court found that the Arbitrator was not functus officio for issuing a Consent Award after a settlement was reached in a med-arb process. One party denied the settlement but argued that, in any event, the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction was over after the settlement agreement and it was improper to “crystallize” the agreement into the Award. The Court dismissed this argument and found that there was a settlement. And the process was not unfair. The Arbitrator did not “conflate” the mediation and arbitration phases of the proceeding by terminating the proceeding after the settlement agreement rather than proceeding to arbitration once one party denied the settlement.

June 5, 2024May 30, 2024

Ontario – International award enforced despite respondent’s non-participation – #839

Medivolve Inc. v. JSC Chukotka Mining and Geological Company, 2024 ONSC 2200, the Court refused Medivolve’s application to set aside an international arbitration award issued by a Moscow-seated tribunal, instead granting Chukotka’s application to recognize and enforce the award. Medivolve failed to appear at the arbitration and claimed that it had not been given proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that Medivolve had proper notice of the arbitration within the meaning of Art. 36(1)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”). It had received actual notice, by email, of the pendency and status of the arbitration well before the award was rendered even though it changed offices (without notifying the opposing party).

May 10, 2024May 3, 2024

Québec – Attempt to circumvent ICC Tribunal order amounts to fraud (in Canada) – #834

In Eurobank Ergasias S.A. v. Bombardier inc., 2024 SCC 11, the Court held that a call on a bank guarantee in contravention of an order of an arbitral tribunal in a pending ICC arbitration amounted to fraud under Canadian law, such that the bank that issued a related counter-guarantee was required to refuse payment.

April 26, 2024April 19, 2024

Singapore – Party cannot resist enforcement on grounds already rejected at seat – #831

In The Republic of India v. Deutsche Telekom AG, [2023] SGCA(I) 10, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that India could not resist recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award based on arguments that had already been rejected in a set-aside proceeding in Switzerland, the seat of the arbitration. Applying the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel, the Court of Appeal held that parties to a proceeding to set aside an award at the seat are generally precluded from resisting recognition and enforcement of the award on grounds raised before the court at the seat and rejected by that court.

February 14, 2024February 12, 2024

Quebec – No abuse of process where parallel arbitration and court proceedings – #815

In Gaston Gagné inc. c. Gagné, 2023 QCCS 4552, the Court confirmed that arbitration clauses should receive a broad and liberal interpretation, dismissed an application to annul a final arbitral award, homologated the award, and dismissed a claim in damages based on an alleged abuse of process by the party opposing homologation. Even though one party decided to bring court proceedings on the same issue he put before the arbitrator, there was no abuse of process because his court proceeding did not impede the arbitration.

January 31, 2024January 26, 2024

B.C. – Enforcing award may be easy; collection may not – #813

In Asia Growth v. Qiao, 2023 BCSC 2173, the claimant was successful in its international arbitration and obtained a damages award of more than $17 million. However, the path to recovery was not simple as the respondent quickly transferred his only asset in B.C., his house, to his daughter. To recover, the claimant not only had to bring enforcement proceedings but also an action to set aside the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance. The claimant got default judgment against the respondent, his daughter and his wife (the other co-owner). Yet, that was still not the end of the story for the claimant. It then had to try to engage in a sale process to sell the respondent’s interest in the property, only to be faced with an application to set aside the default judgment. In this decision, the B.C. court dismissed the application, ultimately clearing a path to recovery for the claimant. This exemplifies that even after the court issues an order enforcing the arbitral award, the path to recovery is not always simple.

January 16, 2024April 30, 2024

Lindsay Reflects (2023): Enforcement of International Awards: The Procedural Fairness Exception – #808

In this commentary, I provide key takeaways for parties that seek to bring or oppose an application to enforce an international arbitration award in Canada. I focus on three decisions issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2023: Costco Wholesale Corporation v TicketOps Corporation, 2023 ONSC 573 (“Costco”), Prospector PTE Ltd. v CGX Energy Inc, 2023 ONSC 4207 (“Prospector”), and Xiamen International Trade Group Co Ltd. v LinkGlobal Food inc., 2023 ONSC 6491 (“Xiamen”). What is the procedural fairness exception and how does it work?