International/Model Law Archives - Arbitration Matters

October 3, 2025October 3, 2025

Ontario – Party bound by rule change despite not agreeing to it – #920

In InFrontier AF LP v. Rahmani, 2025 ONSC 3968 (CanLII) (“InFrontier”), the Court heard an application to recognize and enforce an award and considered the effect of amendments to the arbitral rules chosen by the parties in their arbitration agreement. The parties had agreed to settle disputes by arbitration seated in Dubai using a specific set of arbitration rules (the “OldRules”) administered by a specific arbitral institution. Before the arbitration commenced, a change in Dubai law led to those rules being replaced by a new set of rules (the “New Rules”) to be administered by a different institution. As described below, there was a degree of connection between the Old Rules and the New Rules and between the two institutions. The arbitration proceeded under the New Rules. Mr. Rahmani, the Respondent in the arbitration, unsuccessfully challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to proceed under the New Rules. He was also unsuccessful in the arbitration. InFrontier applied for recognition and enforcement of the award in Ontario. Mr. Rahmani opposed the application, arguing: (1) the composition of the tribunal and the arbitration procedure were not in accordance with the arbitration agreement because the arbitration proceeded, without his agreement, under the New Rules, (2) recognizing and enforcing the award would be contrary to public policy in Ontario because it was obtained as a result of a retroactive amendment to the arbitration agreement without the parties’ consent, and (3) he was unable to present his case during the arbitration. The Court rejected all his arguments.

This case summary deals only with Issue 1.

June 9, 2025June 9, 2025

International – Waiver of State Immunity and State Parties to the NY Convention – #908

On 17 April 2025, England’s High Court released its judgment in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. et ors v The Republic of India. The judgment relates to sovereign immunity pursuant to the UK’s State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA UK”) and the enforcement of arbitral awards made pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”). The specific question for the English High Court was whether or not India had submitted to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the English courts by its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1959) (“NY Convention”). In finding that India had not waived its sovereign immunity through “prior written agreement” only by ratifying the NY Convention, the English High Court has joined company with other American jurisprudence and has parted company with Canadian, Singaporean, and Dutch jurisprudence arising from the same factual background and underlying disputes.

January 10, 2025January 10, 2025

Colin’s 2024 Hot Topic: ONCA weighs in on Bias in Aroma – #888

In Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839, the Court overturned a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had set aside two international arbitration awards on the basis of the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator. Undoubtedly, this was the arbitration case of 2024. The first instance decision and related proceedings have previously been canvassed by Arbitration Matters (see Ontario – Multiple arbitral appointments give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – #734 – Arbitration Matters, Lisa Reflects (2023): Aroma – the blockbuster case of 2023? – #804 – Arbitration Matters, and Ontario – Arbitrator no jurisdiction to hear challenge for bias after partial final award – #691 – Arbitration Matters). It is a multiple appointments case. It arose out of a decision by the Arbitrator to take on a second appointment by the same counsel acting in the Aroma arbitration that was only disclosed by accident with the issuance of the final award. The first Instance decision generated buzz in the arbitration community for, among other things: (1) the Judge below finding it was a “bad look” for the Arbitrator to have accepted an appointment in another arbitration part way through the Aroma arbitration by the same lead counsel in both matters; (2) the Judge considering relevant the parties’ pre-appointment communications on the criteria for the arbitrator to be appointed; and (3) the unresolved question of the impact, if any, of an arbitrator’s financial interest in appointments. It is the second issue that has received the most commentary on this decision.

January 2, 2025December 16, 2024

Josh’s 2024 Hot Topic – Consensual arbitration appeal mechanisms – #884

This year, in a landmark decision, McLaren Automotive Incorporated c.9727272 Canada Inc, 2024 QCCS 3457, the Québec Superior Court rendered a first-ever ruling that considered the validity of an arbitration appeal mechanism whereby the parties’ arbitration agreement allowed the appeal of an award to a different arbitrator. As reported in Arbitration Matters case note no. 864 (“Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Mechanism”), the Court found that such a mechanism does not offend public order principles set out in art. 622(3) of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). Therefore, it found that Québec law does not prevent the parties from agreeing to an appeal mechanism in their arbitration agreement, even though it is not provided for in Québec arbitration law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

November 20, 2024November 15, 2024

Ontario – Court endorses pre-hearing disclosure from non-parties to assist arbitration – #876

In Royal and Sunalliance Insurance v Ontario Provincial Police, 2024 ONSC 5505, the Court interpreted section 29(4) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991 (the “Act”) to allow courts to order non-party disclosure before an arbitration hearing. Section 29(4) states, “[o]n the application of a party or of the arbitral tribunal, the court may make orders and give directions with respect to the taking of evidence for an arbitration as if it were a court proceeding.” The Court’s order permits pre-hearing “discovery” of a non-party to the arbitration, as opposed to the taking of evidence at a hearing. The case sets out some considerations that may be relevant to future applications under this provision of the Act. This case highlights the need for parties seeking non-party disclosure in arbitration to carefully review the applicable legislation and frame requests for Court assistance accordingly.

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.

September 25, 2024September 27, 2024

Québec – Parties May Agree Upon an Arbitral Appeal Mechanism – #864

In McLaren Automotive Incorporated c. 9727272 Canada Inc (unreported, rendered on August 2, 2024 in File no. 540-17-015649-328), the Superior Court of Quebec confirmed that parties may agree upon an arbitral appeal mechanism, despite article 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), which states the only recourse against a final award is homologation or annulment. In this case, an arbitration appeal panel appointed by the parties overturned the decision of the arbitrator, in which he denied having jurisdiction over the dispute. The Claimant then applied to the Superior Court of Quebec, requesting the homologation of the arbitrator’s decision and the annulment of the appeal panel’s decision. In this first decision addressing the validity of an arbitral appeal process, the Court confirmed the validity and jurisdiction of the appeal panel and concluded that the existence and the decision of the appeal panel was valid, considering both the relevant articles of the CCP and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”).

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 29, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Missed Opportunity re Implications of Set-Aside Test for Procedural Unfairness? – #850

In Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2024 ONCA 480 (CanLII) (for ease of reference, “Vento-CIPPIC“), the Court addressed The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic’s (“CIPPIC’s”) application to intervene in Vento’s appeal of last year’s Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s dismissal of Vento’s application to set aside a 2020 international arbitration award [Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2023 ONSC 5964 (CanLII), (“Vento”)]. That and related decisions were discussed in several Arbitration Matters previous blogs, including 810, 796, 572, and 807. CIPPIC’s application was unsuccessful. The Court rejected its application for three reasons: (1) it hadn’t shown a sufficient link between its expertise and the issues in the appeal or its unique perspective; (2) the higher threshold to be granted leave to intervene in a private dispute; and (3) the risk CIPPIC’s intervention would unjustifiably expand the scope of the appeal.

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).