International/Model Law Archives - Arbitration Matters

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 24, 2024May 24, 2024

Ontario – Court can hear set aside despite NY forum selection clause – #837

In Tehama Group Inc v Pythian Services Inc, 2024 ONSC 1819, the Court declined to stay an application to set aside an arbitration award. The stay application was based on a forum selection clause in favour of the courts of New York. In denying the stay, the Ontario court applied an exception in that forum selection clause regarding certain types of disputes under the parties’ agreement that were to be referred to arbitration. The key issue in the case concerned establishing the “place” of the arbitration, which had not been expressly set out by the parties or determined by the arbitrator. Applying the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 (“ICAA”) and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law“) the Court determined that Toronto, Ontario, was the place of arbitration and that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was therefore the only competent forum to decide the set-aside application.

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.

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 27, 2024April 1, 2024

Ontario – Affidavits of “reasonable and informed persons” inadmissible in bias challenge – #824

In The Law Society of British Columbia and Valerie Frances Hemminger, 2024 LSBC 7, a hearing panel of the Law Society of British Columbia Tribunal refused to admit twelve affidavits offered to support the Respondent’s allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the panel. The panel found the affidavits were inadmissible primarily because the “reasonable and informed person” part of the test for reasonable apprehension of bias is an objective legal fiction, not informed by a subjective person whose views may be assessed by evidence and then applied by a decision maker. Accordingly, the affidavits – which offered the opinions of self-professed “reasonable” people about the implications of procedural decisions at the heart of the Respondent’s challenge – were inadmissible.

January 18, 2024April 30, 2024

Jim Reflects (2023): Browne v Dunn is just a rule of fairness: a comment on the Vento case – #810

I’ll take Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States 2023 ONSC 5964 (Vento) as my top pick for 2023. It’s a reminder that just because the strict rules of evidence may not apply in an arbitration doesn’t mean the rationale for some of those rules should be ignored. In this case, it was an alleged breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn, the very rule all Commonwealth litigators had beaten into their heads by their professors, their principals, or, for some of the less fortunate among us, a judge. At heart Browne v Dunn is about fairness, and ensuring fairness is a, perhaps the, cornerstone of arbitration.

January 17, 2024April 30, 2024

Timothy Reflects (2023): Are arbitral tribunals soft targets for bad actors? – #809

This case note reflects on emerging procedural and systemic vulnerabilities of arbitration, a timely and important topic in light of the recent decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Process & Industrial Development v Federal Republic of Nigeria, [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm) (“P&ID v Nigeria”). In that case, Justice Robin Knowles remarked:

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?

January 4, 2024April 30, 2024

Josh Reflects (2023): Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses: jurisdiction and limitations issues – #805

Canadian appellate courts have seldom made significant rulings on multi-tier dispute (sometimes called “step” or “cascading”) resolution clauses, so it is difficult to discern clear trends. A recent decision of the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal (“HKFCA”) is of interest. It considered what forum has jurisdiction to determine whether prior steps in a multi-tier dispute resolution clause have been satisfied.

October 1, 2023October 2, 2023

Ontario – High bar to oppose enforcement of international arbitral award – #777

In Prospector PTE Ltd v CGX Energy Inc, 2023 ONSC 4207, the Court considered an application by Prospector PTE Ltd. (“Prospector”) for the enforcement of an international arbitration award issued in an ICC arbitration. Prospector brought the application pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sched 5 (“ICAA”), which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”). CGX Energy Inc. (“CGX”) opposed the application based on the procedural fairness exception in Article 34(2)(ii)(a) of the Model Law. CGX argued that it was denied the opportunity to fully present its case. However, based on the arbitral award, CGX failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove its counterclaim. The Court granted the enforcement application. Prospector, together with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2017 ONCA 939, leave to appeal to the SCC refused, 2018 CanLII 99661 (“Consolidated Contractors”), make clear that the procedural fairness exception in Article 34(2)(ii)(a) is very narrow. A court is not likely to intervene for process or public policy reasons unless the conduct or decision of the tribunal offends the principals of justice and fairness in a fundamental way.