International/Model Law Archives - Page 2 of 3

July 6, 2023June 29, 2023

Ontario – No contracting out of the Model Law – #752

In EDE Capital Inc. v Guan, 2023 ONSC 3273, Justice Vermette dismissed a set-aside application on the basis that the applicant had failed to make out a breach of procedural fairness or lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, Justice Vermette also held that the applicable legislation in this case was the Model Law, despite the fact that the parties’ arbitration agreement referred to the domestic arbitration act.

June 6, 2023June 20, 2023

Ontario – Competing “jurisdiction” clauses result in application for stay being dismissed – #743

In RH20 North America Inc. et al v. Bergmann et al, 2023 ONSC 2378, the moving defendants brought both a motion under Rule 21 striking out certain of the plaintiff’s claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and an application for a stay for want of jurisdiction on the basis of arbitration clauses in their underlying contracts with the plaintiffs. They met with divided success. While granting relief on the Rule 21 motion, Justice Valente dismissed the stay application on a variety of grounds, including that there were competing arbitration and jurisdiction clauses and that there was an attornment to the court’s jurisdiction as a result of bringing the Rule 21 motion.

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.

April 25, 2023April 21, 2023

B.C. – No power to stay arbitration under Model Law – #731

In Johnston v Octaform Inc., 2023 BCSC 311, Justice Giaschi refused to stay an arbitration, finding he had no authority to do so under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233 [ICAA]. In so doing, he distinguished case law in which courts exercised inherent jurisdiction to stay domestic arbitration proceedings in various circumstances.

February 14, 2023March 17, 2023

Québec – Court rejects foreign state immunity to award enforcement – #710

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Republic of India, 2022 QCCS 4785, Justice Pinsonnault rejected the Republic of India’s effort to invoke state immunity in response to an application seeking the recognition and enforcement of two investment treaty awards. He found that the Plaintiffs had met their burden to prove that (1) the commercial activities exception applied, and (2) India had waived state immunity to enforcement proceedings.

January 16, 2023March 13, 2023

Timothy’s 2022 Hot Topic – At the crossroads of class actions and arbitration – #702

For this year’s “hot topics” post, I have chosen to spotlight an enduring subject: the policy conflict that can arise between arbitration and consumer class actions. The heat comes from developments in 2022 which suggest a fresh look (or two!) at how to reconcile pro-arbitration international legal commitments and policy objectives with consumer protection and class action laws.

January 5, 2023March 13, 2023

Eric/James’s 2022 Hot Topic: What is next for arbitration and insolvency? (Part 1) – #698

By Eric Morgan and James Plotkin.

This past year brought two important decisions about the interrelationship between arbitration and insolvency proceedings: the Supreme Court’s decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest, 2022 SCC 41 (“Petrowest”) and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Mundo Media Ltd. (Re), 2022 ONCA 607 (“Mundo”). Both decisions, in different ways, concern the tension between judicial authority to supervise proceedings brought by a receiver or trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”) and parties’ autonomy to choose to have their disputes determined through arbitration. While the two Courts reached the same bottom-line conclusion – that the particular arbitration clauses were “inoperative” in the circumstances of an insolvency and thus not binding on receivers or trustees – the decisions leave unanswered questions about the ways that insolvency and arbitration continue to interact with each other.

December 19, 2022December 15, 2022

Ontario – High threshold to set aside international award for damages not met – #694

In Clayton v. Attorney General of Canada, 2022 ONSC 6583, Justice Akbarali rejected an attempt to set aside a damages award made by a three-member tribunal (the “Tribunal”) originally constituted under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). The applicants argued that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in respect of the legal standard to be applied, breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit certain expert evidence, and rendered an award that was contrary to public policy. Citing previous jurisprudence on the high thresholds to be met for each of these grounds to succeed – thresholds consistent with deference to arbitral tribunals, – Justice Akbarali found no errors had be committed. She dismissed the application.

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.”

November 18, 2022November 23, 2022

Federal – Amazon purchasers’ class-action competition claims referred to arbitration – #683

In Difederico v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 FC 1256, Justice Furlanetto of the Federal Court granted Defendants’ motion to refer to arbitration claims asserted under section 45 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 (the “Competition Act”) by a proposed class representative plaintiff. Of interest to arbitration observers, the judgment considered the circumstances which qualify as “commercial legal relationships” within the meaning of the United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, RSC 1985, c 16 (2nd sup) (“UNFAACA”), the statute which implements the New York Convention into the federal law of Canada. The New York Convention, Article II(3), requires a court of a contracting State, at the request of a party, to refer claims covered by an arbitration agreement to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. This case also features detailed analysis of the access-to-justice exception to the competence-competence principle recognized in Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber”).