Enforcement/Homologation Archives - Page 4 of 4

January 31, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Enforcement of foreign award against alter egos – #578

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 7, Justice Pinsonnault was seized with several questions with respect to two seizures before judgment by garnishment, which were authorized within the context of an application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered outside of Québec. What makes this situation of interest is the fact that the seizures before judgment involved assets (money) owned by third parties who were not defendants to the arbitration or named in the awards for which recognition is sought (still pending). They are not implicated at all in the facts alleged in the dispute leading to these awards and they are not targeted in the awards either. Nonetheless, Justice Pinsonnault concluded that the allegations against these third-party corporations (fully owned by the respondent, Republic of India) were sufficient to cause him to confirm the seizure against one of them, although with a revised scope. The seizure against the other corporation was dismissed for other reasons related to the State Immunity Act. The application for recognition and enforcement of the awards remains pending.

January 6, 2022May 4, 2022

Liz’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – CUSO International v. Pan American Development Foundation 2021 ONSC 3101 – #570

This case is my top pick as the facts and issues between the parties serve to highlight the value of the arbitration process, including characteristics related to enforceability, neutral forum, party autonomy, confidentiality and arbitrator selection. It also shows how these matters can deliver tangible benefits to parties.

December 21, 2021May 4, 2022

John’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 3571 and 7714 – #566

My top pick for 2021 stands for the proposition that a foreign award creditor will not be ordered to post security for costs simply by virtue of being a non-resident seeking to recognize and enforce an arbitral award. In China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. v. Novalex Inc., 2021 ONSC 3571, a three-person panel of the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Divisional Court”) granted leave to appeal two interlocutory orders, including the order requiring the foreign award creditor China Yantai Friction Co. Ltd. (“Friction”) to post security for costs in the amount of $76,376.71. This case is important because it provides support for Ontario as an “arbitration-friendly” jurisdiction, and, as the Divisional Court noted, “[13] … it speaks to the response of Canadian courts to international comity and our relationship to the courts of other countries.”

November 10, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Award challenged for legal error, denial of natural justice after baseball arbitration – #552

In 1150 Alberni Limited Partnership v Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCSC 2053, Justice Groves heard a petition to set aside an arbitral award or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the award, as well as a cross-petition to enforce the award. The award arose out of a final offer selection arbitration, which required the arbitrator to accept one party’s submission in its entirety and provide reasons. Justice Groves dismissed the set aside and leave to appeal petitions. The arbitrator had not erred in law or in denying the petitioner natural justice; the losing party was simply re-arguing its case. Justice Groves granted an order enforcing the award.

October 28, 2021May 4, 2022

NL – Pre-judgment attachment order granted re possible damages payable from arbitration -#548

In Sandford v Astaldi, 2021 NLSC 130, the plaintiffs sought a pre-judgment attachment order pursuant to s. 27 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Judgment Enforcement Act on the exigible property of defendant Astaldi Canada Inc. They also asked that defendants Muskrat Falls Corporation (“MFC”) and Nalcor Energy be prohibited from dealing with Astaldi property they hold in a manner that would be likely to hinder the plaintiffs in the enforcement of any judgment they may obtain against Astaldi in their litigation. The exigible property at issue was: (a) monetary damages which Astaldi hoped to receive as a result of a private commercial arbitration against MFC and Nalcor; and (b) proceeds held by MFC and Nalcor from the sale of equipment owned by Astaldi. The issue on the application was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Astaldi “is dealing” or “is likely to deal” with its exigible property otherwise than for the purpose of meeting its reasonable and ordinary business expenses; and, if so, whether the manner of it so dealing would likely seriously hinder the plaintiffs in enforcement of a judgment. Justice Thompson granted the pre-judgment attachment order on the ground that Astaldi was no longer conducting business at all in the province, which meant that it was not dealing with its exigible property at all, nor meeting its expenses.

October 15, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Challenge to arbitrator’s integrity to be determined using bias test – #543

In Farmer v Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, the appellant wife appealed three arbitral awards arising out of a five-day family arbitration pursuant to s. 45(6)(a) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17. The wife’s grounds for appeal included that the arbitrator’s reasons were deficient and that the arbitrator’s “Clarification/Explanation Award” rendered after the parties complained that he had omitted certain issues in his first award, was an “after-the-fact” justification for the first award. The arbitrator admitted that he had had difficulty with his dictaphone when he had drafted the first award so that certain portions of it were inadvertently omitted, but said in the “Clarification/Explanation Award” that all issues had been considered. Justice Finlayson found that the “presumption of integrity” which applies to judges also applies to arbitrators and that the wife had to meet a test “similar to” the “reasonable apprehension of bias test” to rebut that presumption. She did not do so and this ground of appeal was dismissed. Justice Finlayson also concluded that the arbitrator’s reasons were insufficient, and substituted his own decision on one issue.

October 7, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Award enforcement application met with merits arguments in leave to appeal/set aside cross-application #539

In Fogler, Rubinoff LLP v Houle, 2021 ONSC 5626, Justice Vermette heard two applications following an arbitration concerning the assessment of two accounts rendered by applicant, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, to its clients, respondents Conrad and Sheila Houle. The arbitrator issued an award requiring the respondents to pay. After they did not do so, Foglers brought an enforcement application pursuant to s. 50 of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Upon such application, the court “shall” grant judgment so long as the requirements of s. 50(3) are not met – the appeal/set aside deadline has not yet elapsed, there is a pending appeal/set aside application, or the award has been set aside or the arbitration is the subject of an award of a declaration of invalidity. In other words, the merits of the award are not relevant. The respondents did not initially appeal the award, but then brought a cross-application – challenging both jurisdiction and the merits – seeking to set aside the award pursuant to s. 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act or, in the alternative, leave to appeal the award under s. 45(1). Justice Vermette found that the set aside application was really a request to review the substance of the award on the basis that the arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable or incorrect. She also dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the ground that it did not raise a question of law. Whether the facts met the required legal test was a matter of mixed fact and law. Therefore, given the dismissal of the respondent’s cross-application, she granted the Foglers enforcement application.