Interim Measures Archives - Arbitration Matters

July 3, 2025July 4, 2025

Québec – Court annuls award for failure to respect appointment procedure in arbitration clause. – #912

In Medicell Pharmaceutical (S) Pte Ltd v. Pharmascience Inc. 2025 QCCS 1325, the Court annulled an interim arbitral award issued ex parte, holding that the arbitrator had not been validly appointed under the parties’ agreement, which provided that the arbitration was to be administered by and conducted by one arbitrator in accordance with the rules of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). In setting aside the award, the Court emphasized that arbitration is consent-based and that a party cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator, even in urgent circumstances and even when the parties’ arbitration agreement allows for provisional measures. Crucially, the Court held that Applicant, which sought the annulment of the interim award, had not waived compliance with the agreed appointment procedure – its silence and engagement, albeit limited, did not amount to tacit acceptance of the arbitrator’s appointment.

January 28, 2025January 31, 2025

International – Agreement to Arbitration and Enforcement Jurisdiction a Package – #891

In Republic of India c. CCDM Holdings, 2024 QCCA 1620 the Court was asked to determine three appeals relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards in the context of: (1) both the commerciality exception and waiver in the State Immunity Act; (“SIA”) (2) seizure before judgment in escrow of sums held by the Montreal-headquartered International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) for the benefit of two Indian state entities before the question of their immunity had been decided on the merits; and (3) the temporal scope of provincial legislation passed in response to said seizures at the IATA. The Court concluded that: (1) India had waived immunity under the SIA by becoming a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) and by agreeing to arbitration under the 1998 India-Mauritius bilateral investment treaty (“India-Mauritius BIT”); (2) the first-instance court had not erred in authorizing ex parte seizure before judgment in advance of the question of immunity being decided on the merits; and (3) the provincial legislation was effective retroactively to the effective date given therein but no further back in time – the seizure of sums held by the IATA prior to this date remained untouched by the legislation.

November 6, 2024November 8, 2024

Ontario – Court Modifies Injunction Test in Context of International Arbitrations – #873

In NorthStar Earth & Space Inc. v. Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc., 2024 ONSC 5060, the Court granted an interim injunction before the applicant had commenced an arbitration. The Court did so even though it acknowledged that the applicant would not have met the test under Ontario law for a mandatory injunction (the strong prima facie case standard). Instead, because of the urgency, the Court applied the injunction test that would otherwise have been applied by the arbitral tribunal under Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 17 requires a lower threshold of showing the claim has a “reasonable possibility” of success. The Court therefore modified the test for granting an interim injunction in the context of an international arbitration.

August 14, 2024August 12, 2024

Québec – Any competent court can issue interim measures regardless of arbitral seat – #854

In GlobeAir Holding GmbH c. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 2024 QCCS 2451, the Court referred a claim to arbitration and, despite confirming its jurisdiction to do so, refused to issue interim measures. The Plaintiffs had argued that the claim, based in statute rather than contractual obligations, fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, but the Court drew on the broad language of the clause to find otherwise. Then, after confirming that the Court had jurisdiction to issue interim measures even though the dispute was referred to arbitration seated in Ontario, it concluded that no prima facie case could be made to grant Plaintiffs’ request.

April 8, 2024April 5, 2024

Québec – No stay of arbitration without exceptional circumstances – #826

In McLaren Automotive Incorporated v. 9727272 Canada inc., 2024 QCCS 389, the Superior Court dismissed the application of McLaren Automotive Incorporated (“Applicant”) to stay the arbitration until the Superior Court had ruled on the merits of its applications: (1) to homologate the Arbitrator’s award concluding that he had no jurisdiction to act; and (2) to annul the arbitration appeal panel’s decision to overturn the arbitrator’s award on its own jurisdiction. The Judge reviewed the applicable criteria for a stay of the arbitration He concluded that exceptional circumstances are required to obtain a stay because of the respect that Courts must show toward arbitration agreements and the principle of limited interventions that the Court must follow in arbitrations. The Judge ruled that no such exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the Applicant in the present case. But the case is worth watching. The institutional rules under which the arbitration proceeded allowed for an appeal to a panel of arbitrators. The issue will be whether the appeal is permitted in Québec where, pursuant to section 648 CCP “an arbitration award may only be challenged by way of an application for annulment”. There is no appeal right.

March 29, 2024April 1, 2024

B.C. – Leave to appeal interim award premature until arbitration concludes – #825

Brown v Smithwick, 2024 BCCA 83 is about an application for leave to appeal an interim award brought pursuant to section 59 of the British Columbia Arbitration Act, SBC 2020 c 2 (“Arbitration Act”). The Applicant sought leave to appeal on the ground that the arbitrator had erred in law by concluding that a debt that the Applicant owed to the Respondent was a debt within section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B03 (the “BIA”), as a debt that arises out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. The reasons of the Court focused on the issue of whether the leave application was premature because the arbitration had not yet ended. The Court held that while it has the discretion to grant leave to appeal from an interim arbitral award, the circumstances of the case weighed against exercising that discretion, including: (1) early judicial intervention would interfere with the arbitration process that the parties had agreed to; (2) the Applicant had not demonstrated that it would be prejudiced by the adjournment; and (3) there could be multiple leave applications to the Court arising from the same arbitration. The Court adjourned the leave application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

October 25, 2023October 20, 2023

Alberta –Stay of Arbitration Granted Where Potential For “Forensic Prejudice” – #785

In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABCA 217, the Appellant Dow Chemical Canada ULC (“Dow”) obtained leave to appeal a decision of a lower court, which declined to make a declaration of invalidity of the arbitration or grant an injunction prohibiting the continuation of the arbitration pursuant to section Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43. In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2023 ABCA 262, a single judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a limited stay of the ongoing arbitration until a panel of the Court could decide the appeal. In that context, the judge found that “forensic prejudice” was sufficient to obtain the limited stay of arbitration. This referred not to prejudice to the applicant, but to the possibility that if Dow were correct that the arbitration were invalid, it might “embarrass the justice system” to allow the arbitration to proceed when it should not have.

October 10, 2023October 13, 2023

Ontario – Arbitral tribunal lacks power to order third-party discovery – #779

In Link 427 General Partnership v. His Majesty the King, 2023 ONSC 2433, the Court refused to enforce an arbitrator’s interim procedural order purporting to compel third-party discovery. This decision highlights the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s procedural authority over strangers to the arbitration agreement, the complexities of which I highlight in my Contributor’s Notes below.

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).

February 16, 2023February 10, 2023

B.C. – Court upholds pre-judgment garnishing order despite arbitration clause – #712

In Care Tops International Limited v. PPN Limited Partnership, 2022 BCSC 2252, Master Robertson of the BC Supreme Court refused to set aside a pre-judgment garnishing order because the Plaintiff failed to draw the Court’s attention to a mandatory arbitration clause during the ex parte application granting that order. Master Robertson found that this omission was not material because it would have had no impact on the outcome; the arbitral proceedings had not yet commenced. As such, she did not have to determine if the Court, or an arbitral tribunal, was better placed to determine the interim relief.