International Archives - Page 3 of 4

May 23, 2022May 26, 2022

Québec – Court extends arbitrator’s immunity to appointing authority – #619

In B Smart Technology inc. v. American Arbitration Association, 2022 QCCS 1526, Justice Mark Phillips granted the Defendants’ Application for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Request for Provisional Interlocutory Injunction and Order to Safeguard the Rights of Plaintiff. The Defendants were the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) and the arbitrator it had appointed. In its Request, Plaintiff sought orders: (1) to recuse and replace the arbitrator; (2) to review the arbitration proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings, the reimbursement for arbitrator’s fees paid to date; and (3) alternatively, the annulment of the arbitration clause and referral of the dispute to the Superior Court. Justice Phillips’s judgment was mainly based on the application of two well-known principles in arbitration law: arbitrator protection against prosecution/immunity (sec. 621 CCP); and the exclusion of court review except as provided by law (sec. 622 CCP). Justice Phillips reaffirmed that the arbitrator’s protection against prosecution is broad and applies both to the arbitrator’s liability and to any challenges against the conduct of the arbitration process itself. He found that the institute offering arbitration services is covered by the protection as well. Justice Phillips also confirmed the exclusion of court review principle, which prevents courts from interfering in an arbitration process other than within the strict and limited occasions provided by law. In this case, the law did not provide for court intervention. Finally, the issue was moot because the arbitrator terminated the arbitration for the Plaintiffs’ failure to pay his costs, as he was entitled to do under the AAA Rules.

April 26, 2022April 25, 2022

Ontario – Clause specifying non-exclusive attornment to courts doesn’t override arbitration clause – #609

In Husky Food Importers v. JH Whittaker & Sons, 2022 ONSC 1679, Justice Conway granted a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration despite an allegation that no underlying agreement was ever finalized and notwithstanding a clause stating that the courts of New Zealand had non-exclusive jurisdiction.

March 17, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Standard of review: set aside for applicant’s “inability to present his case” – #596

In Nelson v The Government of the United Mexican States, 2022 ONSC 1193, Justice Penny dismissed Nelson’s application to set aside the award of a three-member tribunal constituted under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). Nelson relied upon Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law, which allows the court to set aside an award on the basis that the applicant was, “otherwise unable to present his case”. Justice Penny relied upon the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision of Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A., 2017 ONCA 939, at para. 65, leave to appeal refused, 2018 CarswellOnt 17927 (S.C.C), which held that the standard of review for setting aside an award under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) is whether the tribunal’s conduct is “sufficiently serious to offend our most basic notions of morality and justice” and “that it cannot be condoned under the law of the enforcing State”.

January 27, 2022May 4, 2022

Québec – Arbitration 101: parallel proceedings, multiple arbitration clauses, competence-competence, arbitrability, separability, waiver – #577

In Specter Aviation v Laprade, 2021 QCCA 1811, the Court of Appeal faced circumstances in which both the court and an arbitral tribunal found that they had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. The applicant/appellant Specter and related corporation third-party/appellant United Mining Supply appealed the order of Justice Castonguay, who dismissed their request to stay the defendants’/respondents’ defence and counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of an arbitration clause in one of the parties’ agreements. At about the same time, an arbitral tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. Justice Sansfaçon, for the Court of Appeal, granted the appeal and stayed the counterclaim pending determination of the parties’ dispute by arbitration.

January 12, 2022May 4, 2022

Ontario – Fresh evidence test the same on set aside applications on fairness grounds and judicial review applications – #572

In Vento Motorcycles Inc. v United Mexican States, 2021 ONSC 7913, Justice Vermette set out the test for when fresh evidence may be adduced to support a set aside application on lack of fairness or natural justice grounds. The test is the same as that which applies on a judicial review; the record is restricted to what was before the decision-maker, except where there are natural justice or fairness issues raised that cannot be proven by reference to the existing record and that could not have been raised before the decision-maker.

January 7, 2022May 4, 2022

Myriam’s 2021 Top Pick: B.C. – lululemon athletica inc. v. Industrial Color Productions Inc. – #571

Famed Canadian athletic wear company lululemon athletica generated a noteworthy court decision this year, which has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding the sartorial choices it has made in designing Team Canada’s (very red!) uniform for the Beijing Olympics. Rather, the case adds to the significant number of decisions rendered of late in which the courts have grappled with their role – and the tests they must apply – when an application to set aside an international arbitral award comes before them under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (for a deep dive on this topic, see Lisa’s top pick, Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited).

January 6, 2022May 4, 2022

Liz’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – CUSO International v. Pan American Development Foundation 2021 ONSC 3101 – #570

This case is my top pick as the facts and issues between the parties serve to highlight the value of the arbitration process, including characteristics related to enforceability, neutral forum, party autonomy, confidentiality and arbitrator selection. It also shows how these matters can deliver tangible benefits to parties.

January 4, 2022May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 2) – #568

In Part 1 (case update #564), I reviewed the decision of Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited, 2018 ONSC 2419, 2019 ONSC 7558, and 2021 ONSC 4604 on the standard of review to be applied on an application to the court pursuant to Model Law Article 16(3) “to decide the matter” where the tribunal has decided jurisdiction “as a preliminary question” and what evidence is admissible on such an application. In this, Part 2, I discuss the interplay between Articles 16(3) and Art 34(2)(a)(iii). So far as I have been able to determine, this issue does not seem to have been categorically resolved anywhere under the Model Law.

December 16, 2021May 4, 2022

Lisa’s 2021 Top Pick: Ontario – Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited (Part 1) – #564

A review of the 2021 case law shows that the appropriate standard of review of an arbitral award remains uncertain. Russian Federation v Luxtona Limited is interesting because it did not involve an appeal of an arbitral award or a set-aside application, in respect of which there are many court decisions. It considered the standard of review by a court where a tribunal has ruled “as a preliminary question” that it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Model Law. It provides that following such a determination by the tribunal, any party may apply to the court to “decide the matter”, which decision shall not be subject to appeal. Comparable provisions also appear in domestic legislation. The question is the role of the reviewing court asked to “decide the matter”. Confusion exists as to whether such a hearing is a “review” or hearing de novo and whether that determination has any bearing upon the standard of review of the arbitral tribunal’s preliminary jurisdiction determination.

December 6, 2021May 4, 2022

BC – Franchisor addresses Uber arbitration agreement flaws to obtain stay of proceedings – #560

In Kang v Advanced Fresh Concepts Franchise Corp., 2021 BCPC 262, Small Claims Court Judge S. Archer granted a motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration under either section 8 of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.233 or, in the alternative, section 7 of the B.C. Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.2. Judge Archer concluded that the international Act applied because the parties, at the time of their agreement, had their places of business in different countries, but that it didn’t matter because the test for a stay was essentially the same. Moreover, she distinguished the facts from those in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because the income earned by the claimant franchisee was “significant” as compared with the cost to commence an arbitration under the ICDR Rules.