Jurisdiction Issues Archives - Page 11 of 11

October 15, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Challenge to arbitrator’s integrity to be determined using bias test – #543

In Farmer v Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, the appellant wife appealed three arbitral awards arising out of a five-day family arbitration pursuant to s. 45(6)(a) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17. The wife’s grounds for appeal included that the arbitrator’s reasons were deficient and that the arbitrator’s “Clarification/Explanation Award” rendered after the parties complained that he had omitted certain issues in his first award, was an “after-the-fact” justification for the first award. The arbitrator admitted that he had had difficulty with his dictaphone when he had drafted the first award so that certain portions of it were inadvertently omitted, but said in the “Clarification/Explanation Award” that all issues had been considered. Justice Finlayson found that the “presumption of integrity” which applies to judges also applies to arbitrators and that the wife had to meet a test “similar to” the “reasonable apprehension of bias test” to rebut that presumption. She did not do so and this ground of appeal was dismissed. Justice Finlayson also concluded that the arbitrator’s reasons were insufficient, and substituted his own decision on one issue.

October 14, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court denies stay of order authorizing CCAA sale process despite ongoing arbitration – #542

In Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (Re) 2021 ONCA 613, Justice Miller refused to grant a stay pending appeal of an order in a CCAA proceeding authorizing the sale of an interest in a property development. The moving party unsuccessfully argued that the sale should be postponed until the conclusion of an ongoing parallel arbitration, the outcome of which would materially impact the value of the interest. If the sale process was not postponed, the moving party argued, the ongoing arbitration would chill the sale process and it would be impossible to know if a higher sale price could be achieved. Justice Miller held that he could not substitute his own evaluation of the efficacy of the sale process over that of the lower court judge, who had dismissed as speculative the argument that the sale process would suffer a chilling effect.

September 28, 2021May 4, 2022

Saskatchewan – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction when one party alleged to have repudiated arbitration agreement – #536

In Saskatchewan v Capitol Steel Corporation, 2021 SKQB 224, Saskatchewan alleged that Capitol Steel Corporation (“CSC”) had repudiated the arbitration agreement in written submissions made just before the arbitration hearing. Saskatchewan’s position was that these submissions denied one of the recitals in the parties’ arbitration agreement that showed agreement on a matter which CSC then put in issue in the arbitration. Saskatchewan challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction as a result of CSC’s alleged repudiation of the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator dismissed the application and Saskatchewan then applied to the Court “to decide the matter” under s. 18(9) of The Arbitration Act, 1992, SS 1992, c A-24.1, which states that, “[i]f the arbitral tribunal rules on an objection as a preliminary question, a party may, within 30 days after receiving notice of the ruling, make an application to the court to decide the matter.” Justice Clackson found that the standard of review of an arbitrator’s preliminary decision on jurisdiction, where one party alleged the other repudiated the arbitration agreement, was correctness. He held that the arbitrator was correct in finding there was no repudiation because there was no anticipatory breach. The alleged breach did not deprive Saskatchewan of any of the rights that it had under the arbitration agreement.

September 15, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Courts decide consent to arbitration de novo, without deference to arbitral tribunal – #532

In Hornepayne First Nation v. Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership, 2021 ONSC 5534, Justice Fitzpatrick held that a court hearing an application to “decide the matter” of arbitral jurisdiction must decide the question de novo. This was an application to the court under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. That section provides that, if an arbitral tribunal finds as a preliminary question that is has jurisdiction, any party may apply to the court to “decide the matter”. Justice Fitzpatrick followed the Divisional Court’s decision in Russian Federation v. Luxtona, 2021 ONSC 4605, which interpreted a similar provision in Article 16(3) of the Model Law. He held that the court’s role on such an application is to decide de novo whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction.

September 14, 2021May 4, 2022

Québec – Arbitration clause cannot be avoided by bringing a class action – #531

In Centre de santé dentaire Gendron Delisle inc. c. La Personnelle, Assurances générales inc., 2021 QCCS 3463, Justice Davis reaffirmed that a valid arbitration clause will be enforced and cannot be avoided by the Plaintiff bringing a class action. In this matter, the Plaintiff sought authorization to bring a class action against various insurance companies under various insurance policies and to be appointed as representative Plaintiff on behalf of dental clinics which claimed business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Davis dismissed the request for authorization on the basis that it did not meet the requirements of Article 575(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, he said that had he granted authorization, those insured dental clinics covered by an insurance contract containing a valid arbitration clause would have been excluded from the group covered by the class action and referred to arbitration.

August 19, 2021May 4, 2022

B.C. – Scope/excess of authority when arbitrator considers variation of award made based upon incorrect facts – #523

In Marchetti v Lane, 2021 BCSC 1259, Justice Tucker dismissed an application brought by the respondent (Lane) to “change or set aside” an arbitral award under s. 19.18 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. The case has application to commercial arbitration awards and, indeed Justice Tucker looked to the set aside provisions of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 233 (“ICAA”) to determine whether the award should be set aside on jurisdictional grounds. Lane argued, among other things, that the arbitrator had acted outside the scope of the submission to arbitration and outside her authority in varying an earlier “final” award. He argued that the arbitrator had previously declined to clarify or correct the initial award, so it was final and binding upon the parties and subject only to the statutory right of appeal. The parties had agreed to have all their issues in dispute resolved by arbitration and the award which was the subject of this application related merely to one issue. After considering s. 34 of the ICAA, Justice Tucker found that the first award had been based upon facts that turned out not to have been correct and was therefore incapable of being implemented. In varying that award, the arbitrator did not “purport to correct or clarify the award, but determined the application to vary brought before her while her jurisdiction over the matter remained extant under the terms of the submission to arbitration and the applicable statute”.

August 18, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court application stayed; jurisdictional issues required analysis of contract’s factual matrix, should be decided by arbitrator – #522

In 743584 Ontario Inc. v. LAC Otelnuk Mining Ltd., 2021 ONSC 5255, Master Jolley stayed a court application in favour of arbitration. Applying the competence-competence principle and the general rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dell Computer Corporation v. Union des consommateurs 2007 SCC 34, she held that the question of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be decided by the arbitrator, except if the challenge to jurisdiction is based solely on a pure question of law or a question of mixed fact and law that requires only a superficial consideration of the documentary evidence in the record. She stayed the application in favour of arbitration, because the jurisdictional issues raised were questions of mixed fact and law that could not be determined on superficial consideration of the evidence.

July 22, 2021May 4, 2022

Ontario – Court application under Model Law Art. 16(3) to “decide the matter” of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is a hearing de novo and not a “review” of the tribunal’s decision – #513

In Russian Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2021 ONSC 4604, the Divisional Court heard an appeal by Russia of an interlocutory decision of Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Russia Federation v. Luxtona Limited, 2019 ONSC 7558. Justice Penny had declined to allow Russia to adduce fresh evidence on an application brought under Model Law Art. 16(3) to set aside an interim arbitral award finding that Russia had consented to arbitrate Luxtona’s claims and that the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction. The proposed fresh evidence related to the jurisdictional issue and had not been before the tribunal. The appeal turned on whether the application before Justice Penny was a “review” of the tribunal award on jurisdiction or a hearing de novo. The Divisional Court, in a decision written by Justice D.L. Corbett, held that Russia was entitled to adduce fresh evidence as of right because the application was a hearing de novo. The court relied upon two key decisions raised by the parties. Mexico v Cargill, 2011 ONCA 622 held that a set aside application brought in the Superior Court of Justice under Art. 34 of the Model Law is a “review” and not a hearing de novo, but in that case there was no challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. Therefore, the Divisional Court was not bound by it. The English Supreme Court decision of Dallah v Pakistan, [2011] AC 763, held that the court’s role where one party took the position that it had not consented to the arbitration was “to reassess the issue [of jurisdiction] itself” and not to “review” the tribunal’s decision. The Divisional Court found that this approach is supported by the language in the Model Law and the weight of international authority and Art. 2A of the Model Law, which promotes the uniformity of the application of the Model Law internationally.