Jurisdiction Archives - Arbitration Matters

October 19, 2026October 15, 2026

Alberta – Competence-competence and efficiency considered in declaration of invalidity of arbitration application – #961

In Fraser N Peterson Professional Corporation v Mark WM Leishman Professional Corporation, 2026 ABKB 568, the Court dismissed an application under section 47 of the Alberta Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43 (the “Act”) for a declaration that an arbitration agreement was invalid, and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. Although the competence-competence principle would ordinarily require the arbitrator to decide the jurisdiction question first, the Court held that it could hear the jurisdictional challenge under section 47 of the Act. The Court relied on foundational efficiency principles, noting that the parties had advanced comprehensive submissions on an uncontested factual record, the dispute turned primarily on the interpretation of written agreements, and the statutory framework prevented the applicant from making the same challenge before the arbitrator. The Court concluded that the arbitration agreement was valid and survived the termination of the parties’ underlying contract.

September 21, 2026September 17, 2026

Alberta – Court application aimed at arbitrator to stay arbitration pending appeal denied – #958

In Carrigan v Withers, 2026 ABCA 58, the Court denied an application for a stay of arbitration and enforcement proceedings pending an appeal on the ground that it did not have the legislative authority to do so. The application raised issues of irregularities in the formation of the arbitration agreement. Of significance to this case summary, the applicant named the arbitrator as well as the opposite party in the arbitration as respondents.

August 24, 2026

Alberta – Court Dismisses Application to Decide Scope of Unwritten Arbitration Agreement – #957

In 1775773 Alberta Ltd. v Hill, 2026 ABKB 511, the Application Judge considered the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction to determine the scope of an arbitration. The case arose in circumstances where the parties had agreed that all but one of the issues between them would be arbitrated but had not entered into a written arbitration submission agreement or otherwise consented to the Court determining whether the remaining issue should be referred to arbitration. The Application Judge refused to refer any of the issues to arbitration, finding that there was no “meeting of the minds” on the submission agreement and that an arbitration agreement could not be implied from the parties’ Unanimous Shareholders Agreement (the “USA”). He also found that he lacked authority to refer the disputed issue to arbitration because the parties had not consented to the Court determining whether it should be arbitrated.

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.

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026

Ontario – Parties must pay arbitrator as part of good faith contractual performance – #937

In Ongko (Boswell) v. Ongko, 2025 ONSC 7235, the applicant was precluded from bringing her set-aside application. She was not only time-barred from doing so because she commenced the application after the statutory 30-day period, but the Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside an award and to remove an arbitrator for bias where a party fails to comply with the arbitrator challenge requirements of the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17 and the terms of their arbitration agreement, which provided for a mandatory challenge process if either party had concerns about the arbitrator’s neutrality. The applicant elected not to proceed with the challenge before the arbitrator after she refused to pay the arbitrator’s fees. She then chose not to participate in the arbitration. The Court made clear that parties must continue to pay the arbitrator’s fees to complete the contractually agreed dispute resolution process. It also found that there was also no procedural unfairness stemming from her own choices.