Institutional Archives - Arbitration Matters

August 30, 2023September 5, 2023

Québec – Arbitrator wrong to extend arbitration agreement to include third-party employees – #769

The Superior Court of Québec in Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2023 QCCS 2678 held that employees not party to an arbitration agreement should not be added as parties to an ongoing arbitration. There is no support for the proposition that all third parties that are in some way related to the signatory parties of an arbitration agreement should be bound by it. This decision on the merits follows the stay granted by the Superior Court in October 2021 (Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2021 QCCS 4388), covered in Case Note Québec – Stay of arbitrator’s decision to add third parties, force them to meet timetable, and refusal to hear them without payment – #553.

August 18, 2023August 18, 2023

International – Deliberation-related documents need not be produced, despite strong dissent – #766

In CZT v CZU, 2023 SGHCI 11, the Singapore International Commercial Court refused to order the arbitral tribunal to disclose deliberation-related documents in the context of a set-aside application under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) despite the dissenting arbitrator’s statement that he had “lost any and all trust in the impartiality of [his] fellow arbitrators.” The applicant relied upon Article 34(2), alleging that the majority had breached the rules of natural justice, had exceeded the terms or scope of the submission to arbitration, that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and that the award conflicted with Singapore public policy. For the reasons set out below, this case has relevance to Canadian international arbitration practice.

August 3, 2023August 1, 2023

Ontario – Title of proceedings may be amended in recognition and enforcement proceeding – #760

IC2 Fund v Wires, 2023 ONSC 3879 addresses: (1) whether it is appropriate for a party seeking to enforce an international arbitral award to correct the title of proceedings in an enforcement proceeding where both abbreviated and formal names were used interchangeably in the arbitration; (2) whether an applicant using an abbreviated name has standing; and (3) whether a party resisting enforcement can do so on the basis of an arbitrator’s alleged partiality after such allegations were addressed in the arbitration, which decision was not challenged. Here, the applicant (the respondent in the arbitration) brought an application to enforce an arbitral award (the “Award”) relating to its costs of the arbitration. In the title of proceedings in the notice of application, the applicant used an abbreviated corporate name. In the absence of confusion around the party’s identity, including because the respondent (the applicant in the arbitration) had used both the formal and abbreviated names, the court granted leave to amend the notice of application to reflect the full corporate name and resolved the standing issue on the same basis. The court also recognized the Award, rejecting the allegations of partiality of the arbitrator. The respondent had previously made allegations in the arbitration about the arbitrator’s lack of impartiality, which were rejected. The respondent did not challenge this decision.

August 1, 2023August 1, 2023

Ontario – Courts will also enforce agreements in favour of court proceedings – #758

In Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. v BevCanna Operating Corp., 2023 ONSC 4015, the Court dismissed an application by Defendant BevCanna Operating Corp (“BevCanna”) for a permanent stay of the action or alternatively, a permanent stay of any claims caught by the arbitration clause in the agreement between BevCanna and the Plaintiff, Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. (“Eurofins”). The Court found that Eurofins’s claim sought recovery of unpaid fees under the parties’ contract, even though it also included claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Claims for unpaid fees fell within an exception to the mandatory arbitration clause. It permitted (but did not require) claims for unpaid fees to be brought in the courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered whether the essential character, or pith and substance of the dispute, was covered by the arbitration clause. This focus ensures that parties are held to their agreement and avoids attempts by clever counsel to plead their way around an arbitration clause.

July 17, 2023July 17, 2023

Alberta – Restrictive interpretation of exceptions to stay applications – #754

In 2329716 Alberta Ltd. v Jagroop Randhawa, 2023 ABKB 297, the Court of King’s Bench stayed interim and injunctive relief applications pending a resolution of the parties’ dispute in arbitration. The Court found that the Respondent’s application for interim and injunctive relief related to arbitrable matters covered by the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, and that the summary judgment exception in ss. 7(2)(e) of the Alberta Arbitration Act did not apply because: (a) there had been no application for summary judgement; and (b) the Applicant did not attorn to the Court’s jurisdiction by seeking declaratory orders (in a previous proceeding that had been dismissed on procedural grounds) and injunctive relief (at the stay application hearing).

May 23, 2023May 26, 2023

Ontario – International award not enforced because of improper notice – #738

In Tianjin Dinghui Hongjun Equity Investment Partnership v. Du, 2023 ONSC 1808, Justice Kimmel refused to recognize and enforce a $120 million arbitral award in a Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (“SCIA”) arbitration seated in Shenzhen, China against two individual respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Du, who were resident in both Canada and China. She found that the Dus had not been given proper notice of the arbitration within the meaning of Article 36(1)(a)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), being Schedule 2 to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, c. 2, Sched. 5. By extension, the Dus were also unable to present their case.

May 8, 2023May 8, 2023

Ontario – Multiple arbitral appointments give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – #734

In Aroma Franchise Company Inc. et al. v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. et al., 2023 ONSC 1827, Justice Steele set aside two international awards (on the merits and as to costs and interest) arising out of a franchise dispute on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator for failure to disclose that during the arbitration he had been appointed by counsel for one of the parties to serve as sole arbitrator on another matter even though it did not involve a franchise dispute and was in a different industry.

January 9, 2023March 13, 2023

Lisa’s 2022 Hot Topic #2: Challenging the arbitrator – #700

Parties keep trying, but the threshold is still high for disqualifying an arbitrator. These cases in 2022 provide a sampling of the circumstances in which the threshold is met – and those in which it is not.

January 6, 2023March 13, 2023

John’s 2022 Hot Topic: Summary judgment in arbitration – #699

My “hot topic” for 2022 is the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s confirmation that an arbitration can be determined by summary judgment. In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, 2022 ONCA 646, the Court approved proceeding by summary judgment motion where such a motion is consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement. While the case addressed four grounds of appeal, including whether the arbitrator’s ruling to proceed by summary judgment was a procedural order or a jurisdictional award, the central issue, and my “hot topic,” is whether the arbitrator’s partial award, which decided a summary judgment motion should be set aside. For a summary of the decision, see Case Note – No oral hearing required even if one party requests it #667.

November 23, 2022November 28, 2022

Ontario – Refusal to respond not a waiver to arbitrate – #686

In Justmark Industries Inc. v. Infinitus (China) Ltd., 2022 ONSC 5495, Justice Williams granted the Defendant/Moving Party’s motion to stay the court action in favour of arbitration. The Plaintiff/Responding Party Justmark Industries Inc. (“Justmark”) commenced the court action for breach of contract against the Defendant/Moving Party Infinitus (China) Ltd. (“Infinitus”). The contract, however, contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Committee of the International Trade Council (the “ITC”) pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom. As such, Infinitus brought a motion under s 9 of Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (the “ICAA”), which incorporates Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), to stay the proceedings. In response, Justmark alleged that Infinitus had waived its right to arbitration and thus rendered the arbitration agreement “inoperative” under Model Law Article 8(1). Justmark claimed that Infinitus’s failure to respond to its requests to commence arbitration amounted to waiver. Justice Williams, however, dismissed Justmark’s argument on the grounds that there was no evidence that “[16] … Infinitus had the requisite ‘unequivocal and conscious intention,’ or any intention, to abandon its right to arbitrate.”