Jurisdiction Issues Archives - Arbitration Matters

June 1, 2026

Ontario – A med-arb agreement is a multi-tier agreement – #948

In Friel v HUB International Limited, 2026 ONCA 313, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with a med-arb clause and an option agreement for shares with a forum selection clause that stated that the Courts of Delaware had jurisdiction over any disputes. When a dispute arose, the Appellant sought an order appointing an arbitrator and a declaration that the option agreement was unconscionable and invalid. Ultimately, the motion judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the employment agreement did not apply and that the Courts of Delaware had jurisdiction. This case note considers the unique aspects of a med-arbitration agreement as compared to a standard arbitration in a jurisdiction analysis. A med-arb agreement is best understood as a variety of stepped arbitration agreement.

June 1, 2026June 1, 2026

Québec – Arbitrator appointed despite separate action challenging arbitration clause’s validity – #946

In Investissements Cleary inc. v. 9324-4465 Québec inc., 2026 QCCQ 1321, the Court of Québec granted the Plaintiff’s application to appoint an arbitrator in a case involving a claim for unpaid rent under a commercial lease. Following service of the notice of arbitration, the Defendants refused to participate in the process, including in appointing the arbitrator, because their position was that the lease containing the arbitration clause was a nullity. Instead, they initiated an action in the Superior Court of Québec, in which they sought to have the lease declared null and void. The Defendants argued before the Court of Québec that: it had no jurisdiction to make the appointment in light of its action; that there should be priority given to court proceedings over arbitrations to avoid multiplicity of proceedings; and that making the appointment could give rise to inconsistent orders because the issues in the two actions overlapped. The Court dismissed these arguments and made the arbitrator appointment, finding that the arbitrator should be the first to rule on his own jurisdiction in light of the challenge to the arbitration agreement, in conformity with competence-competence. The other court proceeding was not relevant.

April 6, 2026April 10, 2026

B.C. – Narrow basis for refusing to stay an action reiterated – #942

In Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Wiederhold, 2025 BCCA 261 (“Aspen“) the Court reversed a lower court’s finding that an arbitration clause was void and inoperative. In concluding the motions judge erred, the Court confirmed the very limited grounds upon which a court can refuse to stay an action in favour of arbitration. It closes a door the lower court in Aspen had opened and corrects the lower court’s application of the Dell Computer and Uber frameworks.

April 6, 2026April 6, 2026

Ontario – Application to set aside award in baseball arbitration denied – #940

In Stronach v. Stronach, 2025 ONSC 7158, the Parties, who had been embroiled in years of acrimonious litigation related to their family enterprise, agreed to a settlement that included a final-offer (or “baseball”) arbitration to determine the value of the Respondents’ agreed share of the businesses. The Applicants later challenged the arbitral award, which had been rendered by a prominent business valuator. They argued, among other things, that it should be set aside because the Arbitrator relied on an expert report, which was outside his jurisdiction because it did not comply with the valuation standards agreed to by the Parties. The Application Judge dismissed the application, describing it as “very weak” on the purported jurisdictional issue. In substance, he viewed it as a challenge to the merits of the award where there was no appeal. In any event, the Application Judge held that the Applicants had “agreed” to admit the impugned expert report into evidence to challenge its weight. By not objecting to the report’s admissibility at the hearing or to the Arbitrator’s authority to receive it, the Applicants waived their ability to later raise the jurisdictional argument on a setting aside application.

The case raises a number of procedural fairness issues, but this summary will focus on jurisdiction and waiver issues.

February 12, 2026February 12, 2026

Ontario – Court dismisses review of leave decision finding no extricable error of law – #936

In Hilmer Motorsport GmbH v. Mason, 2025 ONCA 875, the Court dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment enforcing a German default judgment in which the appellants were found to have breached an agreement between the parties. The decision addresses the intersection between foreign judgment enforcement and arbitration agreements. The agreement provided that any dispute between the parties was to be resolved by arbitration and the appellants contended that it would therefore be against public policy to recognize and enforce the judgment of the German court. In its ruling, the Court held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause does not, without more, deprive a foreign court of jurisdiction or render its judgment unenforceable in Ontario. The appellants had failed to defend the German action and could not resist judgment on the basis of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.

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.

January 30, 2026February 4, 2026

Alberta – Tribunal not functus officio when issuing award after final award – #932

In Lawrence v. Wood, 2025 ABKB 594, the Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal an award of an arbitral tribunal, or alternatively, to set it aside. The Applicants argued that that the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction when it issued an award stating that a prior award was to be paid jointly and severally. The Court disagreed and held that the tribunal still had jurisdiction to make this clarification because this issue was dealt with “implicitly” in the first award, or alternatively, it was a new issue that was not before it when the first award was issued.

December 19, 2025December 19, 2025

Chris Reflects (2025) – On Court finding that 30-day deadline under Arbitration Act applies to cross-appeals – #930

In Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 402, the Court held that the 30-day time limit in s. 60(1) of the Arbitration Act, SBC 2020, c. 2 (“Arbitration Act”) applies to all appeals from arbitral awards, including cross-appeals. The Court quashed the application of the respondents (“TDMC”) for leave to file a cross-appeal outside that statutory period. It rejected an interpretation that would have allowed reliance on the 15-day cross-appeal timeline in the Court of Appeal Rules(the “Rules”). In doing so, the Court underscored the jurisdictional primacy of the Arbitration Act over procedural rules but urged the Legislature to consider amending the Arbitration Act to provide for a separate timeline to file a cross-appeal to address practical concerns.

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.

September 16, 2025September 23, 2025

Alberta – Exercise of Share Purchase Option Precludes Arbitration of Oppression Claims – #918

In ONE Properties Holdings Corp v Turtle Bay Investments Ltd, 2025 ABKB 313, the Court held that the exercise of a contractual option to buy out a minority shareholder and the accompanying independent share valuation mechanism extinguished parallel oppression claims brought by the minority shareholder pursuant to the arbitration agreements in unanimous shareholder agreements (“USAs”). At the time, the separate option agreement had already been exercised and the minority shareholders’ shares, in respect to which the oppression was being invoked, were already subject to the independent valuation mechanism. The Court declared that, under s. 47(2) of the Alberta Arbitration Act, the arbitration provisions in the two USAs were either invalid or ceased to exist.