International Archives - Arbitration Matters

August 24, 2026

Québec – “May” means “must” in arbitration agreement – #956

In Avalin Group FZE c. Lauzon – Planchers de bois exclusifs inc., 2026 QCCA 651, the Québec Court of Appeal overturned a judgment of the Québec Superior Court, which refused to refer the matter to arbitration because the arbitration agreement stipulated that the parties “may” initiate an arbitration if mandatory mediation is unsuccessful. The Superior Court had ruled that the word “may” meant that the arbitration agreement did not exclude the jurisdiction of domestic courts. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It applied the rules of interpretation of contracts and concluded that the parties intended to enter into a binding and exclusive arbitration agreement (clause compromissoire parfaite), despite the ambiguity created by the word “may”. It therefore granted the application for declinatory exception and referred the matter to arbitration. The Court of Appeal’s decision aligns with more recent jurisprudence as well as commentary regarding arbitration agreements from both Québec and international sources.

August 24, 2026

Saskatchewan – Arbitral institution default award enforceable – #955

In Welter v. Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., 2026 SKCA 62, the Court dismissed an appeal from a decision recognizing and enforcing a default arbitration award under The Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act SS 1996, c E-9. 12 (the “EFAA”). The appellant failed to participate in the arbitration despite notice and did not pay arbitration institution fees as required. The arbitration rules agreed to by the parties permitted the arbitral institution to issue a default judgment in such circumstances, even when a tribunal had not been constituted. The arbitration institution issued a default judgment. The appellant raised several arguments that the award failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for enforcement and had been issued through a procedurally unfair process. The Court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any reviewable error in the enforcement decision.

July 27, 2026July 27, 2026

Ontario – Award enforced despite parties’ agreed institution and applicable rules changed – #953

InFrontier AF LP v. Rahmani, 2026 ONCA 289, was an appeal from an order enforcing an arbitral award made in Dubai. The primary issue was whether the application judge erred in considering the law of Dubai (the seat) in considering whether the arbitral procedure accorded with the parties’ agreement after the arbitration proceeded under a different institution and Rules regime than the ones specified in the parties’ agreement. The application judge found that the parties had agreed to procedural Rules that contemplated an amendment and that the new Rules were an amendment of the Rules specified by the parties in their agreement. The Court dismissed the appeal and accorded the application judge significant deference, finding that there was no extricable legal error in his interpretation of the parties’ agreed procedure.

June 29, 2026June 30, 2026

Ontario – ISDS award set aside on jurisdictional and bias grounds – #950

In Grace et al v United Mexican States, 2026 ONSC 2104, the Court set aside an arbitral award issued under the NAFTA on the basis that: (i) the tribunal wrongly declined jurisdiction; and (ii) one of the arbitrators had failed to disclose his involvement as counsel for a state in an arbitration involving similar issues, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This case focused, among other things, on the continuing duty of arbitrators to make disclosure.

February 12, 2026March 11, 2026

Ontario – Anti-suit injunction granted restraining foreign arbitration by affiliate – #935

In Lochan v Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONSC 6493, the Court granted an anti-suit injunction that prevents Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) and affiliates from pursuing arbitration in Hong Kong against the representative plaintiffs in a certified class action in Ontario. The Court determined that Binance was using an affiliated entity, Nest Services Limited (“Nest”), as an alter ego to bypass previous Ontario rulings that found the arbitration clause in its contract with members of the class to be unconscionable and void.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Lindsay Reflects (2025) – On Third Parties in Arbitration – #929

Issues related to the involvement of third parties in arbitration can be particularly challenging in practice given that few Canadian court decisions address this topic. The purpose of this blog is to address the following three key issues related to third parties in arbitration:

Compelling third parties to arbitrate;
Joinder of third parties and consolidation; and
Obtaining evidence from third parties in arbitration.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025

Ontario – Set Aside not available for bespoke process – #923

In Tehama Group Inc. v. Pythian Services Inc, 2025 ONSC 4134, the Court denied an application to set aside an international award on the basis of alleged procedural flaws in an accounting arbitration to resolve a dispute about whether a purchase price adjustment payment was owing to the seller of a business. The Court reviewed the terms of the parties’ bespoke arbitration agreement and the arbitral award and concluded that the specialist arbitrator, an accounting firm, had followed the summary dispute resolution process to which the parties had agreed. The Court ruled there was no breach of natural justice. Instead, the parties got the process they bargained for: “determinations strictly from a financial accounting perspective” and not “legal guidance or opinion [or] legal interpretation.”

July 3, 2025July 4, 2025

B.C. – Website Terms Contained Enforceable and Not “Inoperative” Arbitration Clause – #911

In Fisher v Airfoam Industries Ltd. (Quad-Lock Building System), 2025 BCSC 758 (“Fisher”), the court considered an application to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 8 of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 233 (“ICAA”). The court proceedings related to a dispute between a buyer and seller about the sale of goods that the buyer alleged were deficient. The applicant seller argued that the dispute was required to be submitted to arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause that was included in the Terms and Conditions on the seller’s website. The court found that respondent buyer had signed sales orders that referred to the Terms and Conditions and that this was evidence that he agreed to them, including the arbitration clause. The respondent buyer argued that the applicant was estopped from relying on the arbitration clause because the respondent and applicant had a shared assumption that the arbitration clause would not be used and that the parties would instead litigate in court. The respondent buyer argued that, as a result, the clause was “inoperative” and unenforceable pursuant to section 8(2) of the ICAA. However, the court found that there was no evidence of any such shared assumption and therefore there was no estoppel. The court granted the stay application. This case is an important reminder that an arbitration agreement is just a contract and grounds that can render a contract unenforceable, such as estoppel, can also render an arbitration clause “inoperative” and unenforceable for the purpose of an application to stay court proceedings for arbitration.

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.

March 7, 2025March 7, 2025

Ontario – Award set aside where one of three arbitrators biased – #898

Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v The United Mexican States, 2025 ONCA 82 is the second recent Ontario decision (after Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839 on the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias of an arbitrator, which arbitration practitioners have been awaiting. In this decision, there was no challenge to the finding in the Court below that the conduct of one of the arbitrators on a panel of three met the test for reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant argued that the judge below was wrong to exercise her discretion to not set aside the award. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award. It found that it was impossible to determine whether one arbitrator’s bias affected the outcome. Reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the arbitrator is such a serious breach of procedural fairness that the award must be set aside, even if it requires a re-hearing of the arbitration.